Currently there is propaganda from the BJP combine that the Congress is an anti-Hindu party. On every conceivable occasion, it states that Congress is insulting Hinduism. In the wake of the verdict of Mecca Masjid blast cases, as the accused got released, BJP spokespersons went hammer and tongs saying that Rahul Gandhi and Congress have defamed Hindu religion, they should apologise for that. In the ongoing campaign for Karnataka elections (2018), the BJP has taken out a Yatra against the so called ‘anti-Hindu policies’ of the Congress. The propaganda has gone to such an extent that even Sonia Gandhi, the ex-Congress President, had to say that Congress is perceived as a party for Muslims!
How should we understand the policies of a party for any religious community? BJP is propagating that it is a party which is taking care of Hindu interests. Is it true? It has taken up issues like Ram Temple, holy cow, article 370, love jihad, etc. Have Hindus at large benefitted from these issues? The claim that these emotive issues are for the benefit of Hindus is a pure make believe propaganda which has led to polarisation, increased hate and increase in acts of violence. The major victim of these policies are not just Muslims, but Hindus too in large numbers. At the same time, we also see an economic slide in the conditions of farmers and workers; atrocities against Dalits and Hindu women are on the rise.
What about Congress being anti-Hindu, being against Hinduism? Let’s take the case of Mecca Masjid blast. The major part of the investigation was initially done by Hemant Karkare, who was killed in the 26/11 act of terror on Mumbai. Swami Aseemanand, the accused, himself had confessed to his crime in front of a magistrate, which was not under duress, and his confession was legally valid. Most of the investigations pointed fingers towards Aseemanand, Sadhvi Pragya, Lt. Col. Purohit and others. During the last four years of BJP rule, the case has been so badly presented by the investigative agencies that they have all been exonerated and the blame has been put on Maharashtra ATS for wrong investigation. When Karkare was proceeding with the investigations, Modi and Thackeray had called him anti-Hindu. Karkare felt so much pressured by these intimidations that he sought the advice of his distinguished elder, Julio Reibero, who advised him to carry on with his honest work, ignoring the pressures.
While the anti-Hindu image of Congress has been constructed around such issues, its pro-Muslim image has been constructed in the last few decades, more so after the reversal on the Shah Bano issue by the then Congress government, which was a flawed decision. The Congress had then yielded to retrograde elements within the Muslim community; the Muslim community as a whole did not benefit from it. Dr. Manmohan Singh’s statement that ‘Muslims have a first claim on national resources’ is yet another statement flouted to assert that Congress is pro-Muslim. What is hidden from public view is that this statement came in the wake of the Sachar Committee Report. This report had debunked the claim that Muslims have been appeased, it concluded that the economic condition of Muslims is worse than that of Dalits, they are also victims of communal violence, and that the only place they are over-represented is the jails!
Any attempt to walk down the path of secularism in our country, which has suffered the impact of ‘Divide and Rule’ policy of the British, is not easy. During the freedom struggle, with the rising Indian nationalism, the people from all religions joined the Indian National Congress. The Congress had Presidents from all religions. Badruddin Tybaji presided over the Congress session in 1887; the Congress also had Presidents who were from Parsi and Christian communities. The primary focus of Congress was Indian nationalism and it practised secularism, even though there were some slips here and there. During those days, the Congress faced criticism from Muslim communalists (like Sir Syed) of being a Hindu Party, while Hindu communalists (like Lala Lal Chand) criticised it for appeasing Muslims at the cost of Hindu interests. All through the freedom struggle, the Congress had to face criticism from both these elements.
The criticism of Muslim communalists led by the Muslim League culminated in the formation of Pakistan. The Hindu communalist, especially Hindu Mahasabha and RSS, criticism was that Gandhi is appeasing Muslims; it is due to Gandhi that Muslims have raised their head, due to which Pakistan was formed. The sharpest articulation of this came in the actions of Nathuram Godse, who was a trained RSS Pracharak and also became the Secretary of Pune Branch of Hindu Mahasabha in 1936. In his statement in the Court (‘May it please your honor’), he says that Gandhi is responsible for formation of Pakistan, he has compromised the Hindu interests and been pro-Muslim!
The present criticism of Congress that it is a Muslim party and is against Hindu interests seems to be a continuation of the above arguments. This criticism, which began with Hindu communalists in 1880s, and then increased with the articulations of the Hindu Mahasabha and RSS, has become intensified during last couple of decades. The reality is that the condition of Muslims has worsened during the last several decades, and during last four years, gone into a tailspin. Despite that, those who are indulging in anti-Congress propaganda and accusing it of appeasing Muslims are having a field day, raising all kinds of emotive issues in which Hindus are as much losers as other sections of society.
Walking the secular talk is becoming more difficult by the day. Gandhi was killed for this and his disciple Nehru is subject of much vilification and calumny for the same. The Muslim communalists rejoiced the formation of Pakistan, where development and amity is missing. With Congress–Gandhi–Nehru, we could make a small beginning towards fraternity and progress. The criticism of Congress as being Muslim party, as being against Hindus, reflects more the sectarian agenda of those propagating this rather that the nature of Congress, which despite several flaws has on the whole been trying to protect secular values!
