“The methods adopted by the invaders have left behind them their aftermath. One aftermath is the bitterness between the Hindus and the Muslims which they have caused. This bitterness, between the two, is so deep-seated that a century of political life has neither succeeded in assuaging it; nor in making people forget it. As the invasions were accompanied with destruction of temples and forced conversions, with spoliation of property, with slaughter, enslavement and abasement of men, women and children, what wonder if the memory of these invasions has ever remained green, as a
source of pride to the Muslims and as a source of
shame to the Hindus?”
–Dr Babasaheb B R Ambedkar, Pakistan or Partition of India, DR BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR: WRITINGS AND SPEECHES, Vol. VIII, Dr Ambedkar Foundation Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India, 2014, p. 64
Amidst the cacophony over who has insulted Dr Ambedkar, even though the historical records clearly indicate how Congress treated the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution, the recent developments in Sambhal have struck a chord with the masses. The issue that started with a petition to survey the Shri Harihar Mandir, now structured as Jama Masjid in the historic town of Uttar Pradesh, is now opening up a new debate about various Constitutional rights given to individuals and communities. Instead of limiting the debate to the Hindu-Muslim question from the pseudo-secularist prism, we need a sane and inclusive debate on the quest for civilisational justice based on truthful Itihasa, involving all sections of society.
The petition by Adv Vishnu Shankar Jain and Hindu Sant Mahant Rishiraj Giri demanded a survey to claim the right to access the disputed structure, which is under the Archaeological Survey of India. So technically, the Places of Worship Act of 1991, which is challenged in the Court, does not apply to the place in Sambhal. Still, some secularists tried to invoke the same, and a few radicals allegedly provoked by the Samajwadi Party leader attacked the surveying team and the police personnel. The event unfolded an unprecedented situation, leading to the unearthing of the Hanuman temple along with Shivling covered by walls. The forgotten pogrom of Hindus in the 1978 riots also came out. The administration also dismantled the illegal electricity transmission from the rooftop of a mosque while taking action against encroachments in the no-go zones. Though the litigations challenging the Constitutionality of the Places of Worship Act are still to be considered by the Supreme Court after a response from the Union Government, the Sambhal developments raise multiple questions on the flawed application of ‘secularism’ in Bharat and its implications for social and communal harmony. The Supreme Court is yet to consider the lawsuits contesting the constitutionality of the Places of Worship Act, once the Union Government clears its stand on the controversial provisions. Still, the Sambhal developments raise several questions about the flawed application of “secularism” in Bharat and its implications for social and communal harmony.
The Constituent Assembly debated secularism with all possible dimensions and decided not to use the term explicitly. There were two-fold considerations while rejecting the term. Firstly, the Western concept originated as a challenger to the Church, leading to the non-religious or anti-religious character of the state being irrelevant in the Bharatiya context Secondly. The Hindu ethos of Bharat believes that equal respect for all ways of worship is sufficient to practice Sarva panth samabhav. From the word go, the Nehruvian idea of ‘secularism’ flouted both these considerations. He opposed the restoration of the Somnath temple even though no other religious structure was involved. The same ‘secular’ icon shamelessly handed over enemy properties to the Waqf Board through a communal act in 1954. How can Sharia and Secular Democracy go hand in hand? However, Nehru’s sinister ploy of misusing secularism bogie unfortunately made the two inseparable. The trend continued throughout the Congress regimes. The term ‘secularism’ was introduced by Smt Indira Gandhi in the Constitution when Fundamental Rights were suspended and the entire Opposition was put in jail. Rajiv Gandhi overturned the Supreme Court judgement in the Shah Bano case through a brute majority and encouraged radicals to bully the state through blatant communalism. When the Ramjanmabhoomi Movement was at its peak, the Narasimha Rao Government introduced the Places of Worship Act in 1991, denying any right to attain civilisational justice for the ancient nation. The same Government introduced the revised version of the Waqf Act, 1995, giving overwhelming powers to the so-called minorities to claim any land as Waqf property. Secular state has become ’a slippery phrase to by-pass the ancient culture of the land’, as feared by Shri Loknath Mishra, a prominent member of the Constituent Assembly.
From Somnath to Sambhal and beyond, this battle for knowing the historical truth is not about religious supremacy. It is against the Hindu ethos. It is about reaffirming our national identity and seeking civilisational justice. Congress tried to duck the caste question, delayed the implementation of social justice and exploited the caste identities for electoral gains. Even during the Mandal agitation, Congress opposed caste-based inclusion, losing ground to various political parties. The story of religious identities is not very different. After the painful Partition of the motherland on the Islamic lines, instead of striving for civilisational justice by telling the truth about Itihasa and resetting the present for a harmonious future, Congress and Communist historians chose to whitewash the sins of the invaders. By presenting larger-than-life images of bigoted rulers like Babar and Aurangzeb, who were forthright about their sins and ideology behind the same, the Congress cabal gave the false impression to Bharatiya Muslims that they were the rulers before the British. The Muslims of Bharat should realise that they are not the inheritors but the victims of barbaric Islamic invasions. Their ancestry is from the diverse sects of Hindus, and therefore, they must reject the ideology of iconoclasm.
The time is ripe to address this quest for civilisational justice. That does not mean we should create communal discord by raising a new issue everyday. This would weaken the social fabric & give space to external actors to intervene in the internal affairs of Bharat. As Babasaheb Ambedkar went to the root cause of caste-based discrimination and provided constitutional remedies to end the same, a similar approach needs to be devised to end the religious acrimony and disharmony. This approach, based on accepting the truth about Itihasa, disassociating Bharatiya Muslims from the perpetrators of iconoclasm and religious supremacy, and legally redressing the quest for civilisational justice, offers hope for peace and harmony. The application of ‘shoddy Secularism’ would encourage radicalism, separatism and hostility.
