Must Being Pro-BJP Automatically Have To Mean Being Anti-Hindu Whenever Necessary?
Shrikant G. Talageri
Opindia is an online journal which is pro-BJP − in fact, one of the many pro-BJP online journals which are flourishing since the BJP captured power decisively and completely.
Like most of these journals, it publishes many articles which are pro-Hindu and many which are pro-BJP. Naturally, Leftists and Secularists will cavil at both these types of articles, since there is a consensus among pro-BJP and anti-BJP opinion-makers and lay people (somewhat like in PK Baruah's famous sentence in 1974, "Indira is India, India is Indira") that BJP and Hindu are synonyms, so that "BJP is Hindu, Hindu is BJP" or "BJP is Hindutva, Hindutva is BJP", or alternately "anti-BJP is anti-Hindu, anti-Hindu is anti-BJP" or "anti-BJP is anti-Hindutva, anti-Hindutva is anti-BJP". The question which can be raised is: are these journals for any pro-Hindu/Hindutva issue or against any anti-Hindu/Hindutva issue only because they perceive the issues to be respectively pro-BJP and anti-BJP, or is it the other way round?
I have always been criticizing this automatic and compulsory equation between a political party like the BJP and our civilizational identity of Hindu/Hindutva as extremely dangerous and Orwellian, and pointing out that these internet journals, and pro-BJP opinion-makers and lay persons, are by and large ("by and large" because I am sure there are many honorable exceptions) only pro-BJP, and their seeming pro-Hindu/Hindutva stance on any issue is merely opportunistic posturing and occurs only in contexts where the pro-Hindu/Hindutva stance coincides with the stance of the BJP. When the political interests of the BJP, on any issue, clashes with the interests of Hindus, Hinduism and Hindutva, these journals, opinion-makers and lay persons are consistent in actively batting on the side of anti-Hindu/Hindutva forces and their interests with as much zeal as the anti-Hindu/Hindutva forces themselves.
Today, an article published on Opindia.com illustrates this truth very vividly:
This article, titled "Judicial verdicts, if ill-conceived or plain wrong, can have serious consequences: Judicial activism, Electoral Bonds verdict and ramifications", attacks what it calls "judicial activism" or "interventionism" with special emphasis on the extremely corrupt "electoral bonds" issue, and tries its best to show how electoral bonds in fact represented an effort to clean up corruption in electoral funding.
However, I will not waste time on the main subject of the above article. I consider the attempt to whitewash the "electoral bonds" issue as something which even Squealer of Animal Farm would have admired for its brazenness and irony. But it is not an issue which I want to deal with. As for the main thrust of the article, on "judicial activism" or "interventionism", I (who have always been and always will be an opponent of leftist and anti-Hindu judicial activism and interventionism) have now come to realize that at a time when events in India are treading the same anti-democratic path that certain nations in Europe were treading nearly a century ago, in matters of democracy at least India is very much in need of judicial activism and interventionism today. But even that is not the issue of this article.
The issue in this article is this paragraph in the above article: "We all know the recent upheaval in Manipur – the rioting, civil unrest and numerous deaths that followed the local High Court’s decision. Quint, no fan of Modi or the BJP government called it the “tinderbox that led to the conflagration” It was withdrawn suddenly, and one can be 400% certain the judges involved won’t face any consequences. That is not our objective anyway."
Yes, here we have a shining example of where pro-BJP and anti-Hindu interests converge into one, and coincide exactly with leftist anti-Hindu interests. In respect of wanting to destroy the Meitei people of Manipur, to prevent them from getting the same ST benefits that every other tribal group (except the Meitei) enjoy in the northeastern states, and to see to it that they in the course of time face the same fate that the Kashmiri Pundits faced in the late eighties of the last century, there is full coincidence and consensus in the views of:
1. This pro-BJP journal.
2. The BJP politicians who refused for so many tumultuous months to implement the earlier ruling of the Manipur High Court.
3. The leftist online journal Quint, which the above article accepts is "no fan of Modi or the BJP government".
4. The "activist" and "interventionist" judges of the Supreme Court, who are in fact otherwise the villains of the above article.
The Manipur High Court had earlier directed the government to consider giving Scheduled Tribe status to the Meitei community. Facing strong opposition from the converted-Christian non-Meitei tribal people of Manipur, and complete stonewalling from the BJP, and finally after the Supreme Court expressed its strong disapproval of this ruling, the Manipur High Court was recently compelled to remove the "contentious paragraph" in its ruling which asked the government to grant ST status to the Meitei people.
And every pro-BJP opinion-maker and lay person is busy applauding this anti-Hindu turn of events:
1. To begin with, this pro-BJP journal introduced a reference to the Manipur issue into an article which was about "judicial activism and interventionism" on a completely different issue, but on this particular issue it expressed full agreement with the leftist Quint and the "judicial activist and interventionist" Supreme Court in:
a) condemning the Manipur High Court for asking for ST status for the Meitei people and calling this the "tinderbox that led to the conflagration",
b) regretting that the judges who asked for the ST status for the Meitei people are not made to "face consequences" (i.e. be punished) for their pro-Meitei act.
2. Then, on the only internet discussion group of which I am a member, a pro-BJP and also allegedly a pro-Hindu one, one person referred to this issue (calling it "an unexpected gem on judicial accountability in India" with specific reference to the Manipur issue) as follows:
"This is unexpectedly a very well put together article on key issues with India's judiciary citing several cases:
"We all know the recent upheaval in Manipur – the rioting, civil unrest and numerous deaths that followed the local High Court’s decision. Quint, no fan of Modi or the BJP government called it the “tinderbox that led to the conflagration” It was withdrawn suddenly, and one can be 400% certain the judges involved won’t face any consequences "
Tomorrow (a very hypothetical and extremely unlikely situation, I admit), if any judge of any court in India rules that articles 25-30 of the Constitution, which give special privileges to non-Hindu religious places and institutions, should be extended to apply to Hindu religious places and institutions as well, one thing is certain: leftist journals like Quint, pro-BJP journals like Opindia, all politicians (with BJP politicians leading the pack), all other judges (led by the "activist" and "interventionist" judges of the Supreme Court) and all pro-BJP and anti-BJP opinion-makers and laymen will be united in condemning that hapless judge and asking that he be made to "face consequences" for his ruling.
No comments:
Post a Comment