Why does BJP oppose the word secular?

 

Why does BJP oppose the word secular?

-SR Darapuri National President, All India People's Front

Speaking on Constitution Day in Parliament in 2015, BJP representative Rajnath Singh again reiterated that the inclusion of the word secular in the Constitution is unnecessary and has been misused a lot. He further defined secularism and said that it does not mean secularism but sect neutrality. Even before this BJP and its allies have raised similar objections to this word.

It is known that the words secular and socialist were included in the Preamble of the Constitution in 1976 by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment. It is also noteworthy that under the Right to Equality in Article 14 of the Constitution, discrimination based on religion is prohibited by the state against any citizen. Apart from this, according to the right to freedom of religion in Article 25 of the Constitution, every citizen has the fundamental right to profess, practice and propagate his religion. It is clear from these provisions of the constitution that our state is completely secular. These provisions are so clear that there is no scope for any kind of doubt in them, the BJP wants to keep them confused in the definition.

Being a secular state, all political parties are expected not to use religion in politics, which is also prohibited in the People's Representation Act. Similarly, it is the constitutional duty of the ministers and officers of the government to behave completely secularly in discharging their duties. But it is unfortunate that since independence till now neither our politics could become secular nor the people sitting on constitutional posts and administrative officers could become completely secular. The biggest example of this was our first President Dr. Rajendra Prasad. The first thing he did on assuming the office of the President was that he had replaced all the Muslim chefs (cooks) working in Rashtrapati Bhavan with Hindu cooks. His second act, which annoyed Nehru very much, was that after becoming the President, he went on a pilgrimage to Kashi and washed the feet of 200 Brahmins there and gave them dakshina. He probably did this because he was a Kayastha by caste, which is considered a Shudra in Bihar. Therefore, he thought it necessary to take blessings from the Vidvatjan Sabha of Kashi for his acceptance. Another act of his was to go for the installation of Shivling in Somnath temple after renovation, with which Nehru was very angry. Nehru's private secretary John Mathai wrote in his memoirs that the Somnath temple was renovated with the money that the then Agriculture Minister K.K. Munshi by increasing the price of sugar to the sugar mill association by Munshi in connivance with Sardar Patel, a part of it was received as a bribe. This information was received by Nehru when he could not do anything.

Nehru's personal secretary MO Mathai has also written in his memoirs that when Dr. Rajendra Prasad entered Rashtrapati Bhavan, he had ordered many langurs (Monkeys) because he was a Hanuman devotee. Dr. Rajendra Prasad used to feed the langurs with his own hands. They also used to go to North and South Block near Rashtrapati Bhavan and used to pick up the tiffins of the employees and tear files. When their population grew, they used to reach even the nearby houses and cause damage but they could not complain because they were President's baboons. Later, when Dr. Rajendra Prasad left the Rashtrapati Bhavan after the completion of his term, all the langurs were caught and sent to the Delhi Zoo.

Similarly, Babu Rajendra Prasad had also threatened to refuse assent to the Hindu Code Bill brought by Nehru and Ambedkar to give rights to Hindu women because he was against it as a Sanatani Hindu. It is also said that Sardar Patel wanted the Somnath temple to be renovated with government money, but Nehru did not allow it. In Nehru's absence, Sardar Patel had even got the Congress Working Committee to pass a resolution that Congressmen could become members of the RSS, but Nehru got it cancelled after returning from abroad.

Similarly, Madan Mohan Malaviya, who was a staunch Hindu, used to take Gangajal with him whenever he went to England. When an Englishman visited him, he used to purify his room by sprinkling Ganges water on his departure.

It is clear from the conduct of some of the above persons who held high positions that Indian politicians have never been completely secular. Our former Vice President Shankar Dayal Sharma had gone to pilgrimage with full official trappings. Not only this, all our government programs are completed only by Hindu religious rituals and worship of Gods and Goddesses. Whenever and wherever the BJP has come to power, it has introduced RSS for government employees. The doors of membership have been opened. From this, you can get an idea that how secular our governments and administrations have been in practice or are at present. By the way, Congress too has mostly been pretending to be secular. Its behaviour has also mostly been communal. It is known to all that the idols were placed in the Babri Masjid of Ayodhya in 1949 during the Congress rule. It was the Congress government that opened the locks of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya and laid the foundation stone of the Ram temple there. Rajiv Gandhi started his election campaign from Ayodhya only after taking the blessings of Ram. In fact, Congress has always been playing the card of soft Hindutva, in which BJP later defeated it because BJP has always been doing politics of Hard Hindutva. Even on the issue of Ram Mandir, it went ahead of the Congress and won the battle by getting the Babri Masjid demolished.

Some time ago in the Parliament, by interpreting the word secular instead of secularism, the BJP has again given the message that it is not ready to accept India as a secular nation because till now it has been doing the politics of religion and wants to make India a Hindu Rashtra. Even if BJP's definition is accepted that our constitution is only sect neutral but not secular, then it means that India is a religious nation. Now because Hindutva is the biggest sect, then only the Hindu religion can be the religion of the nation. Therefore, BJP is very muchafraid to accept the word secular, because by accepting it, its Hindutva politics will be in danger and its resolve to make India a Hindu Rashtra will remain incomplete.

Only a Multi-class Democratic Platform can defeat the authoritarian politics of BJP/ RSS

 

Only a Multi-class Democratic Platform can defeat the authoritarian politics of BJP/ RSS

 Main points on the basis of the talk with Akhilendra Pratap Singh, Member, National Working Committee of Swaraj Abhiyan by senior journalist Santosh Bhartiya of Loud TV India about the political initiative required in the present situation:

(Akhilendra Pratap Singh in this conversation has expressed his views about the new ideology and strategy in the present situation, pointing out the ideological and practical shortcomings of old political experiments and learning from his experiences. It is the current political truth that at this time the finance -capital funded BJP-RSS government has strengthened its hold not only in the political but also in the social / cultural sphere and it is moving very fast towards establishing fascist system in all the areas. Now it is not possible for the political party of a single caste or class to defeat it, whether it is Bahujan politics or whether it is socialist politics. So far the casteist / social justice model of Bahujan and socialist politics has failed badly and in a way it it is strengthening the Hindutva agenda of the BJP / RSS.

Therefore, as Akhilendra has said that at this juncture it is necessary that the forces  opposing totalitarianism in the country as well as civil society should come on a political platform, create a multi-class platform, bringing all the oppressed communities, castes and classes in it. The BJP-RSS can be given an equal challenge and they can also be defeated.

Since 2012, we have been working on the model of peoples politics in the districts of Sonbhadra, Chandauli and Mirzapur in Uttar Pradesh through All India People's Front by forming a common front of Dalits, Tribals, labourers, farmers and various communities since 2012 in which we are also getting a very good response. We have fought two Lok Sabha and one Assembly elections as  AIPF. Our work has expanded to Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha, Karnataka, Haryana, Delhi, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu.

Therefore, all the friends are requested to openly consider Akhilendra ji's suggestion in this conversation for creating a multi-class democratic forum and give your suggestions / ideas in this regard and if you agree then become a participant in it. Any other name of the stage can also be named unanimously.

URL of Loud Talk on Loud TV India :

https://www.facebook.com/LoudIndiaTV/videos/393897244926544/

-          S. R. Darapuri, National Spokesperson, All India People's Front)

 

On the question of failure of the Left to become people’s movement, Akhilendra Pratap  said that In India, the Left is generally taken to mean the Communist Party. I see the Left as a democratic movement. I consider three streams in it. First stream is Communist Party formed in 1920. The second one was the CSP (Congress Socialist Party) of Acharya Narendra Dev and Jai Prakash Narayan. The third important stream was represented by Dr. Ambedkar. He advocated state socialism. I consider him also as part of left movement. The impact these 3 streams should have made in Indian politics, could not be realised. While searching for the answers, I found that our communist organisations were not suited to Indian conditions. This form of organisation originated in Europe particularly Russia. Taking a lead from their orientation, it was experimented in India. These organisations could not comprehend the social reality as well as the realty of agrarian society. Nor they could translate it into politics or ideology. I believe that the socialist experiment going on since 1934, exhibited more maturity in the field of politics. Till 1955 when Acharya Narendra Dev was active, efforts made by him for developing Marxism in Indian context were closer to Indian conditions. Dr. Ambedkar formed Indian Labour Party and he wanted to cooperate with the Communists. Communist Party could not benefit from that opportunity also.

Their thought process did not match with the realty of the country. Gandhiji had a better understanding of the stage of Indian society and here was not space for socialist revolution. The slogans of Communists were socialist slogans. But, actually, India needed a national democracy. There was need to further advance the journey of democracy. Need of the hour was to unite the Socialists, followers of Ambedkar and Gandhians who were not ritualistic and institutionalised. As per the goals of Gandhi ji in his last phase, big change was desired. There was need to build a people’s/mass party, which may be called multi-class party. But it was not done.

Lohia, in Panchmadhi called upon people from different philosophies to join his party.  Acharya Narendra Dev commented on this. Further discussion was needed on it. He had said that class struggle, democracy and planning should be retained. After the formation of Praja Socialist Party, Lohia's experiment could not maintain the balance of class. Rather, it became balance of caste which ultimately degenerated into casteism. Nothing was learnt from the experiments of caste movement in South India. Laloo and Mulayam can be seen in this context.

Akhilenda  said that there was need of synchronization and adjustment with all those forces whose ultimate goal was socialism but were currently engaged in democratic movement, working for people's democracy. I am not talking about front, but need to forge organic link, as Mao did in China or Congress under Gandhi ji's guidance comprised of various parties and ideas. Such experiment was needed then. But Communist Party could not experiment it. Anyway, there is again a favourable time.

When it was asked that communists fought many battles for peasants, but they did not accept them as their leader, Akhilendra said that Communists always faced a crisis of praxis. They could never evolve the strategy and tactics independently, as per conditions of the Indian agrarian society. There was a split in their work style. Theoreticians and practitioners were a different set of people. There could not be proper synchronization and integration between theoreticians and those Dalits, Tribals, OBCs, and Upper Caste people who were struggling at the grassroots level. He said that characterisation of state had certainly changed despite various divisions. But regarding the basic questions in Indian context viz. land and agrarian issue, class and caste question, women issue,  question of Tribals and other oppressed communities, Hindu- Muslim question, and above all the question of nationalism, which incorporates peaceful resolution of border dispute etc., a consistent policy framework and programme could not be formulated.

Even today, the Communist parties have the structure of the war period, while we are working in a parliamentary democracy. There is no organizational structure suited to parliamentary democracy. It remains a crisis, which still needs to be addressed sooner or later, because the old structure and old-fashioned political understanding, especially with the theoretical questions will not be able to carry forward the movement. It is good that today they are trying to address the question of caste along with class.

He said on a question that as far as Kanu Sanyal or Charu Majumdar is concerned, Charu Mazumdar did a major experiment. There was a crisis in this thinking because capitalism survived longer than was expected. People associated with the Communist Party thought that if a great Bolshevik Party was formed, there would be revolution, while capitalism  developed in India in various forms, whether it was industrial capitalism or today's finance capitalism. It gave birth to such productive forces which have strengthened the system. The action that should have taken place in accordance with these objective conditions did not happen. He said that there was spirit of dedication in the new experiment of Charu Majumdar, but the political understanding was contrary to the Indian reality, so the movement could not make headway.

One of its experiments was definitely made in Bhojpur, where attempt was made to solve the question of caste and class. The IPF was also formed but that experiment, too, could not go ahead.

The Maoists, who have remained there, have a base among the Tribals of a particular region, but it is not possible for them to sustain and advance the movement further.

In the context of the current situation of the country, Akhilendra said that it is the dawn of a new era. The RSS and the BJP are moulding the country in tune with the finance capital. Efforts are being made to make the entire political system authoritarian from within. There is a need to create a big democratic platform against it. It should not be a front but an organic relationship, as Congress did during freedom movement. This is a period of experimentation and we are engaged in this experiment and it is developing.

Initially, the right wing was very weak, From Congress to other organizations and the left parties were working among the workers, yet how did the right wing become so dominant?

On this question, Akhilendra said that all the pro-people currents in India could not come on one platform and work together with one programme. Congress miserably failed. So a vacuum was created. Neither the Dalit nor Socialist movement came together.

In the nineties, the right-wing forces filled that space after VP Singh's experiment failed. The opposition forces remained mute spectator or many socialists joined hands with them (the BJP). Communist parties could not carry forward that experiment in India. Neither could they resolve the question of caste and class, nor could they develop any specific area to tackle the threat of authoritarianism, they also could not take any initiative at the national level.

Was the weakness of leftist ideology behind this?

 Akhilendra said that the basic work that was to be done in India was to develop politics in the agrarian society, to accommodate broader forces within its fold, especially the farm-labourers and the poor peasants and the wider sections of the peasants. But everything was confined to the workers movement and the trade unions. The farm-labourers were also not systematically organised. The acceptance in farmers' movement could not be gained.  There was no acceptance in the middle class, too. The crisis of theoretical understanding of Indian society continues till today. It’s (the Left) organizational form is not in accordance with the Indian democratic structure. The working style of leaders is office oriented. They should take their thinking to the masses and then learn from them and make new theoretical formulations. If this is not done, then the theory will become lifeless. If there is no practical knowledge, then the organization and politics will not improve. This crisis has been there from the beginning and it has further increased these days.

How do you see the time of two years in India? On this question he said that the danger is very big. India's biggest threat is finance capital. For the first time finance capital is unilaterally promoting the forces of Hindutva. Internationally, India is moving towards America. The crisis has deepened in such times. Prashant Bhushan is being punished for expressing his opinion. Protests are also taking place. The forces of the Right Wing are still very strong today. They have turned the social structure in their favour. They create frenzy by creating border disputes with neighbouring countries. Circumstances are more in their favour. The crisis is deep, but it can be reversed. Along with civil society in the country, the forces opposing authoritarianism should come on a common political platform, create a multi-class structure. If all the oppressed communities, castes and classes are brought into it, then they can be given a fitting challenge and can also be defeated. The way of thinking has to be changed and political behaviour also has to change.

He said that I am involved in the movements taking place in the country. Many people of the Jai Prakash movement had become inactive, now they are becoming active again. I have organic relations with the Left parties. There is communication with Prakash Karat. Already I have better relations with CPI (ML) Liberation. When I was sitting on fast in Delhi, the representatives of CPI (ML) along with Justice Sachar, Prakash Karat, and late Com.Vardhan came there.

He said that BJP and RSS are bringing unnatural things in India. They do not match with Indian psyche and society. Plurality and diversity is our character. We are democratic in our character. Authoritarianism will not succeed in India. The ideas of modernity have to be taken afresh in the Indian context, not by imitating Europe. We have to mobilise the masses on this question.