Asghar Ali Engineer is a rights activist and heads two organisations, the Institute of Islamic Studies and the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism. He has authored or edited 44 books on such issues as Islam and communal and ethnic problems in India and South Asia in general.

For links to his other articles, please go to the top page of this site.

        So hurtling and bumping the BJP-led coalition has completed one year in office. Most of the people thought that it would not last more than a couple of months. And this estimate was not merely out of hostility towards the BJP. The rag-tag coalition was quite shaky and subjected to different pulls and pressures. In fact it was many secular outfits like the Samata Party, Trinamul Congress, Lokshakti of Hegde etc. which propped up the BJP government. The BJP itself was not expecting to last very long because of such shaky coalition. It is, therefore, jubilant that it could complete one year. What was otherwise the need for such celebrations? A normal stable government does not have to celebrate its completion of one year.
        This one year was not easy for the BJP. It is no exaggeration to say that it survived on day to day basis. Number of times its coalition partners particularly Jayalalitha threw tantrums and made life of the BJP-led coalition very difficult. Again, Ms.Mamta Banerjee was also not easy to deal with. The BJP had to give in to their demands time and again. The BJP's claim of providing stable government lays in ruins. 
        However, here we are not concerned with the BJP's claims for stability or otherwise. Here we want to examine the BJP's performance from secular perspective on one hand, and, from the minority perspective, on the other. The BJP's famous slogan has been 'justice for all and discrimination against none'. Also, it promised riot-free India to the minorities, particularly the Muslims. It also found fault with the Nehruvian secularism and called it 'pseudo secularism' and talked of 'positive secularism'. The Nehruvian or the Congress secularism was described as 'pseudo' because it was supposedly based on 'appeasement of minorities' and the example of the appeasement given was allowing them to practise their own personal laws which meant Muslims being allowed to marry up to four wives. The BJP's 'positive secularism' would do away with the appeasement of minorities and instead set up non-discriminatory regime.
        It had also promised its Hindu voters that it would construct the Ramjanambhoomi temple if it came to power. It was not possible for it to fulfill this promise as it did not enjoy absolute majority in the Parliament. It is at least how it explained it away to its Hindutva supporters. But some symbolic gestures were also necessary to satisfy the hardcore elements and hence pillar carving for the temple was duly publicised. The VHP maintained that it will go ahead with the construction of the Ram temple and fixed 2003 as the date of its completion. The VHP said that we will go ahead even if the Supreme Court judgement goes against us. It is matter of our faith and no court can interfere with our faith. However, the BJP kept a distance from the Ram temple construction and maintained that it can fulfill its promise to construct the temple only when it gets absolute majority in the Parliament. But it did not take any step to stop carving of the pillars, firstly, as it falls within the state jurisdiction and, secondly, anyone is free to carry on such activities and no law can prevent it.
        Before we take stock of various events pertaining to minorities and secularism, we would like to throw some light on the BJP's philosophy and the pluralist society. Here the most important question is: can a party with purely partisan interest rule over a country of pluralistic society? The Indian socio-religious scene is extremely complex. It is not only  Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains, but also extremely varied religio-cultural traditions of Hindus themselves. Other religions too represent such pluralistic traditions. If the ruling party associates itself with any one religion, the question arises which sect or tradition of that religion, it will associate with? In Pakistan also the question is with which Islam the government will be associated? The Sunni Islam? The Shi'ah Islam? And if Sunni Islam, Deobandi or Barelvi or Ahle Hadith? 
        If the BJP associates itself with Hindu religion which tradition of Hinduism? Hinduism embraces hundreds of traditions within its fold. Thus in a democratic set up diversity always poses a problem. This problem of diversity can be tackled only if the state remains secular. Mahatma Gandhi, though he was intensely religious person, knew dangers of religion getting associated with state, and hence he advocated a secular state.
        The BJP which advocates the Hindutva philosophy will find it extremely difficult to obtain absolute majority in Parliament as not only that non-Hindus will not vote for it, but also many Hindus will not. Both liberal and secular Hindus will keep distance from it and also religious-minded Hindus too. Religious beliefs can never be coterminous with political ideologies. It is no wonder then that the partition project was not supported by religious-minded Muslims. The BJP also draws its support mainly from middle class or trading class Hindus, and not necessarily from religiously believing Hindus. At least two of the Shankracharyas have sharply attacked the VHP and its policies.
        The religious appeal has obvious limits. You cannot push the economic and other problems being faced by the people under the carpet while pretending to appeal to religious sentiments. The BJP learnt it hard way by losing elections in three states a few months ago. The prices shot up sharply during the BJP regime and as a result it lost these crucial elections. Thus it can be seen that religious appeal has its obvious limits. 
        However, the most difficult is problem  of religious plurality and of managing it. The Parties like the BJP, even if it comes to power on its own, would find it difficult to govern with serious problem. The BJP now on power experienced  problems  because of its allies. It tried to introduce various Hindutva measures and found itself in a very difficult situation. First, it faced stiff opposition from the opposition secular parties when it tried to introduce Sarasvati Vandana in a conference of education ministers of states in Delhi. The education ministers belonging to secular parties staged a walk out when the conference was to begin with Sarasvati Vandana. The opposition parties raised the issue in parliament also and there were heated exchanges.
        The U.P.government, also led by the BJP, faced tough opposition when along with singing of Vande Mataram Sarasvati Vandana was sought to be made compulsory in all government schools in the U.P. The minority children, particularly the Muslims, refused to perform Sarasvati Vandana and to sing Vande matram. The matter went to such an extent that Maulana Abul Hasan Nadvi asked Muslim parents to withdraw their children from schools if  made compulsory. The BJP was divided on the issue: the hard liners pressing for it and moderates led by the Prime Minister Vajpayee favouring withdrawal of the scheme. The Human Resources Minister  Murli Manohar Joshi and Home Minister  L.K.Advani were in favour of continuing with the scheme. The stiff opposition to these measures by minorities on one hand, and by secular parties on the other, brought considerable embarrassment to the BJP government at the Centre. In this matter too the government had to retreat.
        The worst thing during one year of the BJP-led government at the Centre was attacks on Christians particularly in Gujarat and Orissa. In the Dangs district of South Gujarat those tribals who had converted to Christianity quite some time ago came under attack. Number of churches were destroyed and Christian schools targetted. Also, in Rajkot more than 200 copies of Bible were burnt alleging that they were being used for converting the students. Even a corpse was exhumed from the Christian cemetery alleging that it was a disputed land. 
        Undoubtedly the VHP which is a militant member of the Sangh Parivar was behind it. What was worse, the Chief Minister of Gujarat  Keshubhai Patel and the Home Minister Haren Pandya supported the attacks. The National Commission for Minorities also sent its members led by Rev.James Messy to investigate. The members of the Commission concluded that there was serious violation of rights of minorities in Gujarat, particularly  Christians and Muslims. The Muslims also came under attack in Bardoli and Panchmahal districts as some Muslim boys married tribal girls. The Muslims of these villages were terrorised and had to flee from their villages. 
        The attacks on Christian  Dangs assumed such serious proportions that the Prime Minister  Vajpayee himself had to visit the Dangs. But his visit created a fresh controversy as he was reported to have said that there should be national debate on conversions. But later he maintained that he did not say that there should be debate but dialogue about conversions.  The worst incident, however, took place in Orissa where a Christian priest Graham Stewart Staines who had dedicated his life for more than twenty years for leprosy patients and had not indulged in any conversion, was burnt alive along with his two small children while sleeping in a jeep. It was most shameful incident in which one Dara Singh, an activist of the VHP was allegedly involved. It shocked the whole nation. Similarly some Christian nuns were raped in Jhabua district of M.P. and this rape was sought to be justified by Mr. Sharma, 'Prem' of the VHP, on the grounds that the Christians indulge in conversions.
        Thus it will be seen that Mr.Vajpayee, a moderate leader in the Sangh Parivar, had to face repeated embarrassment at the hands of extremists in his own party. The RSS also began to distance itself from him. He was almost isolated in his party. Mr.Madanlal Khurana, the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, resigned in protest against  his isolation in the Party. 
        It was in these circumstances that Mr.Vajpayee resorted to the `Bus diplomacy' went to Lahore by bus. It was his master stroke and took militants in his party by surprise. The move generated tremendous enthusiasm among the people of both the countries. The second generation after the partition was not for heightened tension between the two countries and wanted greater interaction. The people of Pakistan too had given Mr.Nawaz Sharif a mandate for better relationship with India. Thus it can be said that it is certainly an achievement of the BJP government led by Mr.Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Mr.Vajpayee visited even the Shahid Minar in Lahore where the resolution on the two nation theory was passed in March 1940 which signified the ideological acceptance of the creation of Pakistan. All this will go a long way to ease tensions between these two warring countries. Mr. Vajpayee as  Foreign Minister in the Janata government in 1977-79 had relaxed the visa restrictions and had improved relations between the two countries. He took that to its culmination as the Prime Minister of India, and he may improve relation between the two countries, particularly after a bad patch since the Kashmir imbroglio from 1990 onwards. 
        Thus the one year of the BJP-led government was quite eventful in which communalisation touched new heights. Also, more than 629 communal riots took place during 1998 in which about 207 lives were lost according to the figures given in the Parliament by Mr.L.K.Advani. In conclusion we can say that the worst of the BJP government was the increased communalisation and the attacks on minorities, particularly, the Christians who were not  targetted before, and the best was the `bus ride' to Pakistan which has eased tension between India and Pakistan.
 

Secular Perspective April 1-15, 1999
Centre for Study of Society and Secularism,
Irene Cottage, Second Floor,
Santacruz (E),
Mumbai:- 400 055.