A diminished Atal Bihari

Whether the BJP uses Atal Bihari Vajpayee as a mukota (mask) or not is no longer relevant. The party has spread the illusion of becoming liberal all over the country. Assam is the last one to be fooled. Its ruling Asom Gana Parishad (AGP) is the BJP’s ally in the coming assembly election.

Come to think of it, the bait of power the BJP laid out hooked most of the Janata Dal’s constituents, who had once sworn by secularism. Their faith must have been skin-deep because they are now as much protagonists of the BJP’s philosophy as the RSS is. Vajpayee’s image might have given them a convenient cover but it was essentially the seat in the government which made them change their colour. Still, it was believed that they, when part of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), would exert some influence to make the BJP less communal.

There is no sign that they ever tried. What is more tragic is that the Sangh parivar has even stopped bothering about them — as if they are just a part of the furniture.

It is at least known that Vajpayee and Advani have differences over Kashmir and even Pakistan, indicating the gap between liberal and hardline viewpoints. But what about those, who have spent the best part of their lives fighting communalism? George Fernandes, Nitish Kumar, Sharad Yadav and Ram Vilas Paswan were once great custodians of secularism. Why have they never criticised the saffronisation drive taking place in all departments of the government at the Centre?

The latest is the RSS ultimatum to the NDA to remove, by next March, impediments in the way of building the Ram temple at the site where the Babri Masjid once stood. None from among these secularists has protested against the threat. The silence of Telugu Desam chief Chandrababu Naidu is most noticeable. He is the major player and his 29 votes in the Lok Sabha can pull down the BJP-led government. How can he reconcile himself to the building of the temple on the disputed site? He has often said that he would never go against the sentiment of the Muslim electorate in his state.

As for the second seniormost leader in the NDA, Advani, he airs his views on Hindutva with gusto. He had no compunction in saying before the Liberhan Commission that Indianness and Hinduness were ‘‘essentially synonymous’’. He went on to say: ‘‘For us in the BJP, participation in the Ram temple movement was aimed at strengthening the concept of nationalism in the country.’’ Once again Naidu and other allies of the BJP in the NDA are conspicuous by their silence.

The ministers dare not open their mouths lest they should lose their berths in the government. But do they realise that they are pushing the minorities to the wall? The formation of SIMI, a Muslim youth organisation, which was instrumental in the Kanpur riots, is a direct fallout from such assertions.

Advani’s statement may further poison the administration, which has already been penetrated by RSS elements. Imagine the effect of his statement on the Muslims, Christians and even the Sikhs. What Advani is saying boils down to this: if you want to live in India, you will have to become a Hindu. This is what the RSS has been specially propagating since the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi.

The harm which the Human Resources Development Minister Murli Manohar Joshi is doing in the field of education is no less than that done by Advani. Joshi is communalising history and all that is connected with the proud heritage to which Muslims have also contributed significantly. He has already removed from key positions some of the best historians the country has. In an interview with The Indian Express he says that he has left it to the NCERT to decide what books the students should use and who should write them. But the NCERT is at Joshi’s beck and telephone call.

No document can be more relevant to understanding his leanings than the one NCERT has brought out on school education. It had evoked wide protests in 1999 when it said that the higher education stage should be ‘‘Indianised, nationalised and spiritualised’’. The 2000 curriculum framework it has now brought out talks about “values with an emphasis on religious values” — whatever that means. Joshi has written a letter to MPs asking them to help implement the curriculum framework ‘‘in a desirable manner’’. Desirable is a significant word. It suggests that what he has in mind is desirable. It is a sort of directive. It means that any dissent will be taken as an impediment to the saffronisation drive on which he has embarked. The fear is not unfounded.

Joshi’s secretary, M.K. Kaw, said in an article entitled, Education in Human Values, in the official NCERT journal: ‘‘The greatest damage to our intellectual freedom has been caused by traditional religions, especially by those which have a single holy book from which they derive their authority.’’

Muslims, Sikhs and Christians believe in one book, the Quran, the Guru Granth and the Bible, respectively. Each community considers its book holy and finds in it the message of God. Kaw’s remarks are derogatory and provocative. To add insult to injury, he had written, ‘‘We tend to forget that these religions have been founded by people like us.’’ Thank God, the National Commission for Minorities noticed his writings and told him that his article might have an adverse effect on the country’s pluralistic society. He tendered an unqualified apology. It is obvious that Kaw had no defence. Coming back to the new education policy, there is also an unashamed promotion of Sanskrit from the primary stages. The reason given is that it has consistently been used in India for thousands of years and is still ‘‘inextricably linked’’ with the life, ritual ceremonies and festivals of vast Indian masses. I have nothing against Sanskrit. But it should not claim all our attention.

A secular country cannot pick and choose the language dear to a particular community to exclude others. Too much emphasis on Sanskrit in the last NCERT report was resisted by many Southern states, too.

The real danger from people like Joshi is that they give a fillip to fanaticism. The new policy may not improve the quality of education but will certainly damage the nation’s secular ethos. Advani and Joshi betray their bias towards the Hindu Rashtra. How can Vajpayee be part of the organisation which has them as its senior leaders? Either he is helpless or a passive accomplice. Both ways he does not come out well. Still worse is the damage the two have done to his image and that of his party. At one time, the BJP had given the impression that it would change its ways and the NDA agenda seems to give evidence of that. It’s time Vajpayee asserted himself. Otherwise, he could, one day, come to regret that Advani and Joshi have hijacked the country.

Earlier Columns