Sonia expects to buy protection from Muslims in name of secularism
Arvind Lavakare8 Apr 2014Thank you Soniaji. Thank you for stooping from your lofty position of President of the 129-year-old Congress and entreating Syed Ahmed Bukhari, a mere Shahi Imam to appeal to the Muslim community to vote for the Congress in Elections 2014. Her purpose in making the request was to ensure that “the secular vote is not divided.” And, less than 48 hours later, the Imam of Jama Masjid publicly performed in obeisance to Soniaji’s request (fatwa?)
Thank you, then Soniaji, for finally revealing the long-suspected suspected truth about yours and the Congress’s communalism which goes by a selfish interpretation of the words ‘secular’ and ‘secular vote’.
It is of course a different matter that Mufti Mokarram Ahmed, Shahi Imam of Fatehpur mosque was quick to publicly oppose Imam Bukhari’s endorsementfor the Congress by saying that the Muslim vote should vote for any secular party or even for an Independent vote. But even quicker had come the whiplashof Ahmed Bukhari’s younger brother, Syed Yahya Bukhari. The man had the guts to proclaim that the Congress was the most communal party in India and had done a lot of harm to Muslim interests. Rarely, if ever, had any Muslim of any importance come out with such an indictment. I therefore salute Syed Yahya and all Muslims like him.
Indeed, Sonia Gandhi’s interaction with the Shahi Imam event on All Fool’s Day shows that in respect of cajoling and chasing Muslim for their votes, Sonia Gandhi is no different from her husband Rajiv Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Jawaharlal Gandhi, and from Rajiv Feroze Gandhi — all Congressi gods of the last century. Why, Soniaji has now finally shown herself to be no different from Mahatma Gandhi himself in begging favours from Muslims in return for promises of the future.
Several other issues also arise from this event.
The first fallout is that Sonia Gandhi reveals her belief that the Muslims don’t have a mind of their own and can be controlled by a Muslim cleric like robots made in some laboratory. Therein lies the implied assumption that Muslim votes can, like bundles of crisp currency notes, be carried in a van to a bank’s ATM centres. Whether voters from 138 million Muslims (2011 Census) in India vote in bulk, like grazing sheep, is something only psephologists and May 16 results can tell us. But the thought itself is an insult to the Muslim community.
Secondly, Sonia Gandhi seems to believe that Muslims voting for the Congress Party candidates is a manifestation of the ‘secular’ concept. The logic seems to be that voting for any other political party would be non-secular.
The tragic overriding fact is that our nation has been for too long obsessed with the adjective ‘secular’ and the noun ‘secularism’. One result of this obsession is that it has needlessly brought about a lot of hurt and hatred among our people. This has happened because neither the pretentious all-knowing media experts nor the politicians opposed to the BJP ever cared to analyse the adjective ‘secular’ and the noun ‘secularism’ in the Indian context. And the BJP, always such poor communicators, have never really told our nation how, in 1977, it did secure the Lok Sabha’s approval of a definition of the word ‘secular’ but failed to do so in the Rajya Sabha where the Congress continued to have a majority even during that period of the Janata Party rule under Morarji Desai.
Thus it is that very few know that in the Constituent Assembly debate on October 17, 1949, Brajeshwar Prasad, member from Bihar, suggested the inclusion of the word ‘secular’ in the Preamble of our Constitution because he said that this word ‘secular’ was dear to India’s national leaders and its inclusion in the Preamble would tone up the morale of minorities as well as prevent disorderly activity. What happened? There was no discussion on the suggestion!
Two other points raised on this subject remained unanswered. Was a state secular only when it stayed strictly away from religion, and could such a secular state survive only if society was slowly secularised as well? Or did a state that equally respected all religions best capture the meaning of secularism in the Indian context.
That last sentence above was seized by the Janata Dal Government to undo the introduction of the word ‘secular’ in our Constitution’s Preamble by Indira Gandhi in in the 42nd Constitution Act. Regrettably, as stated above the definition of ‘secular’ as meaning “equal respect for all religions” was not passed by the Congress majority in the Rajya Sabha.
By the way, the word “dharmnirpekshata” does NOT mean equal respect for all religions as is believed by almost every politician. After all, dharm in Hindi means ‘fundamental duty’. It does not mean religion. For proof, the Hindi version of the Constitution of India has the word panthnirpekshata as translation of the word ‘secular’ in the English version. And it will interest readers to know that the word panth is the one that means ‘religion’. That word was coined by Lakshmi Mall Singhvi, (1931-2007), a literary figure and an altogether very versatile personality who was awarded the Padma Bhushan in 1998 and who was summoned by Indira Gandhi to translate the word ‘secular’.
Really, there would be almost no rancour among politicians if now the Congress accepts the meaning of ‘secular’ as being ‘equal respect to all religions’ as incorporated in the 44th Constitution Amendment Bill of the Janat Party 34 years ago.
Meanwhile, Sonia Gandhi would do well to ponder over the following two points:
1. “Dr Ambedkar made it clear in Parliament that he did not believe that our Constitution was secular because it allowed different treatment to various communities and the legislatures could frame separate laws for different communities.” (“Reforming The Constitution” UBS Publishers Distributors Ltd, 1992 edited by Subhash C Kashyap, an eminent Constitutional authority.). And Kashyap’s own view is: “Where there is discrimination between man and man on the grounds of religions… where the administration of places of worship can be entrusted to Government Officers… where even fundamental rights are demanded and conceded on grounds of communities, it is a cruel joke to talk of secularism.
2. Unknown to almost our entire political class, the Preamble of the separate Jammu & Kashmir State Constitution, November 1956, does not proclaim J&K as a ‘secular’ State. Thus the queer truth that an integral part of India is not ‘secular’ though the nation as a whole is advertised to be so.http://www.niticentral.com/2014/04/08/secular-sonia-exposed-as-communal-and-ignorant-208780.html