Divide And Rule

In his elegantly argued rejoinderto ‘Crisis in Hinduism’,Balbir Punj mentions that "Post Ayodhya, secularists have changed their strategy and easily invoke thewell-respected icons of Hinduism to rubbish Hindutva." He goes on to say, after some wonderful quotationsreferring to Mohammedans and Christians, "One may disagree with what Gandhi, Vivekanand, Aurobindo andDayanand had said but nobody can say that these were not their views".

One is puzzled. As convenor of the BJP’s think-tank (and an intellectual -- theBJP website modestly refers to it as the Intellectuals' Cell), what are his views? One sees threepossibilities:

• Gandhi, Vivekananda etc were good people whom the secularists are misquoting but the BJP supports
  
  
• Gandhi, Vivekananda etc were good people who are being misrepresented by the secularists, but the BJP alsodoes not fully support them
  
  
• Gandhi, Vivekananda etc were bad people, who are in addition being misrepresented by the secularists, andthe BJP does not support either of them

In other words, assuming that Vivekanand said  "every man going out of the Hindu pale is not only aman less, but an enemy more" - was that a good thing to say or a bad thing? And does the BJP think-tanksupport it or not? And is that their definition of Hindutva? What was the purpose of the quotation? One isconfused.

One was also interested to learn that terms one had hitherto considered innocent, such as ‘Hindu rate ofgrowth’ and ‘Cow Belt’, are actually part of a communist plot to undermine Hinduism.

One had no idea that the communists had supported and provided the arguments to M.A. Jinnah, therebyleading to the creation of Pakistan.

One is sorry that Gowalkar was maligned by being quoted out of context, and relieved to see that Punj isnot doing the same thing to Gandhi, Dayanand, Vivekanand, Aurobindo and others. This would have been an insultto their memories.

One has now learnt that ‘exclusivism and intolerance in matters of faith are features of Semiticreligions’ , and that ‘intolerance and persecution were alien to Hinduism’. Clearly, Dr Ambedkar wasmaking a fuss about nothing.

One now understands that the INA was actually an organization based on Hindutva. History books, mostlywritten by leftists, can be very misleading sometimes.

One is fascinated to learn that secularism is a fundamentally European concept. One had always thought itwas enshrined in the Constitution. If one questions the Constitution, how is one different from PervezMusharraf, who has no respect for such pieces of paper?

One is asked, "Was India a heaven of communal harmony before the emergence of the RSS?". One would liketo ask a simple question, based on more recent history. Is it seriously the BJP think-tank convenor’sposition that communal harmony in India has improved since the day Mr Advani realized he had only two MPs anddecided to roll out the chariot? Maybe he should ask a random selection of people in the street.

One is very glad to see the BJP think-tank convenor defend Gowalkar of the RSS and approvingly citeSurendra Jain, head of the Bajrang Dal as examples to support his case. From now on, one will seek the BJPview on the actions and utterances of these organisations. Mr Advani and Mr Vajpayee had been creating someconfusion about whether they supported them or not. One would have liked to call them two-faced hypocrites,but one is scared of being kicked out of the Hindu fold, given some of the quotations the convenor hasrevealed.

Certainly, intellectual debate is required on the nature of Hinduism and the role of Islam. However, inorder to do this, one requires intellectuals An organization can be known by either its words or its deeds. Ifthe BJP think-tank convenor’s poisonous drivel is an example of the words of his party, it’s no wonderthat they prefer that the deeds of an evil, murderous thug like Narendra Modi represent them.

Incidentally, since the convenor cleverly tries to rope Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains into his fold, to theexclusion of the Judaistic Christians and Muslims, it’s worth remembering that there’s a buzzword for thispractice too, also of European origin. They used to call it ‘Divide and Rule’

 (Shovon Chowdhury is an average citizen who found himself compelled to respond to a press-articlefor the first time in his life by Mr Punj's vituperations)