The grand-old party of India, lashed out at BJP for casting
aspersions on the faith and religious belief of Rahul Gandhi after his visit to
Somnath temple. Debilitated by worst spree of electoral debacles, Congress, having
won Gujarat Rajya Sabha seat through intervention and high-profile drama
fervently aspired to lock horns with BJP in an electoral battle at Modi’s home
turf. Rahul Gandhi, the unofficial heir to Congress began to make several tours
to Gujarat to inspire the electorate with his charisma and political acumen. In
the process, embarked on time-tested path of electoral appeasement by peppering
his visits with relentless temple run. In a bid cast-off pro-minority image,
offering prayers at the Vir Meghmaya temple in Patan, Gandhi claimed, “I am a devotee of Shiva and I believe in
truth. Whatever BJP says I believe in truth”. Gandhi’s every campaigning
visit to Gujarat invariably included a trip to temple. While this new-fashioned
approach caught the electoral attention, the atypically trend ended in a thud
with his latest visit to Somnath Temple. Minutes after his temple visit,
reports emerged that Gandhi’s name appeared in the non-Hindu register prompting
unprecedented storm of debates in main stream and social media. Despite huge
uproar and mounting alternate evidences that irrevocably demolished false
claims of Gandhi, the Party presidential candidate in waiting hasn’t come
forward to clarify his stand. Apparently, his silence lent more credence to
BJP’s allegations. The Dynasty always had
distinct reputation of functioning under cloud of impenetrable secrecy. With
his abject defiance to come clean on religion, Rahul’s pretentious position stands
exposed. This incident eventually blew lid off the decades long appeasement
politics practiced by the Congress. But contrary to its avouched minority
pandering, attempts to woo Hindus seems to have back fired.
At a time, when nations are rallying to usher mankind into a
realm of artificial intelligence and extra-terrestrial colonization plans, is
debate on personal belief system justified? But for all practical purposes, the concept of
non-existential vacuous modernism devoid of religion which the elite subscribe
to is surreal. As religion is an important social marker and politics can’t
divest itself from it. Religion and politics have been intricately intertwined
and hence the political agenda of appeasement politics is relevant. As a matter
of fact, religion has been the single driving force that caused partition of
Indian sub-continent. For the first time in history, a country, Pakistan was
carved out of India solely on basis of religion. Even after seven decades of
independence, India is still paying huge price for a devastating partition and
its concomitant outcomes that continue to threaten national security and
sovereignty.
Upholding the precincts of democratic, free society every
Indian can practice any religion of his choice. But Articles 25-30 of Indian
Constitution favored minorities whereby “all
are equal, but some are more equal”. Inadvertently, these clauses, demarcated the
society along religion lines dividing Indian society into distinct groups-
majority and minority. Further consolidating these demarcations, three decades
after independence, secularism was thrusted on the country deeming it to be
cardinal symbol of cosmopolitanism and modernity. A Secular State is ordained
to be neutral towards matters of belief, respect pluralism and enforce a
uniform civil code. Contrary to the western doctrine of secularism, India
allowed Muslims to practice personal law augmenting incongruities within the
society. Soon, left-liberal brigade and politicians exemplified inequalities by
appending tags of victimization and invoking appeasement policies. This in turn
substantially enhanced the authority of religious heads who issued fatwas to
vote for certain party. Over the years, this nexus began key determinant in
switching the scale of electoral mandate in favor of a specific party.
The unabashed competitive urgency of political leaders to enhance
quotas for Muslims more so during the electoral season further exemplifies role
played by religion in politics. For that matter, census in India are carried
out along religious lines. Ever since, politicians diligently studied
core-demographic expansion to consolidate their vote banks. It will indeed be
not an over exaggeration to say that certain political parties are in power due
to their minority pandering. Also, nothing
can better explain the demand of Lingayats of Karnataka to be accorded a
minority tag since it can fetch them better facilities and assured non-governmental
intervention in their religious activities. As long as this special treatment
is accorded to certain communities along religious lines, despite being a
private affair, religion would remain utterly important.
Coming to present debate, Rahul is free to practice religion
of his choice and ideally no one can ask him to divulge his religion had he
stayed away from pandering to Hindu community. Now that he overtly made
attempts to woo voters through his high-profile temple visits faking his identity,
a clarification is needed. Though party spokesperson declared that Rahul is a
“janaeu dhari Brahmin”, New York Times article of 1998 claims that Rahul was raised
as catholic. Congress Party’s new revelation expectedly accentuated
consternation as the party always detested Brahminism and was in cahoots with
liberals in ridiculing Hindu religion. Further, in an affidavit to Supreme
Court, on Ayodhya issue, Congress alluded that Bhagwan Ram is a “myth”. Hence,
what explains this sudden U-turn? Religion and politics have never been
exclusive. As a matter of fact, religious dictums have been bed rock for
governance in theocratic states. India so far, has been a sham secular state
with political parties never shying away from using religion for their
political ends.
@ Copyrights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment