So Mrs. Gandhi has turned out to be a Hindu communalist. What doubt can there be when not only the self-appointed guardians of Islam such as Col. Gaddafy but also one of the arch-priests of secularism, the secretary-general of the Communist Party of India, Mr. C Rajeswara Rao, says so?
Mr. Rao’s credentials are, of course, above board. Since the ‘forties when the CPI endorsed the Muslim League’s “nationalist” demand for the partition of this country, neither he nor anyone of his colleagues has ever had anything to do with any sectarian (communal, caste or regional) organisation or platform. Indeed, in the ‘fifties they spelled out even a more thorough going programme of nation-building when they said that India comprised many nationalities which have the right, in fact the obligation, to assert their separate linguistic-cultural identities. They then also denounced the proposal to make Hindi the medium of inter-state communication as Hindi imperialism.
Mr. Rajeswara Rao first delivered his judgment on Mrs. Gandhi in a signed article in the CPI’s official mouthpiece, New Age, dated June 19, and then repeated it at a press conference in Bhubaneswar on June 19.
As is to be expected from so uncompromised and uncompromising a nationalist, Mr. Rao’s evidence is at once incontrovertible and overwhelming. Mrs. Gandhi has “no compunction to join with (sic) the BJP-RSS to fight and defeat the left democratic front as evidenced in the last election in Kerala.” “In Bhaderwah constituency of (sic) the Jammu region, the Congress (I) set up a local Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader, Hari Lal Hiteshi as its candidate”. “In the Valley, the Congress (I) came to a secret understanding with the Jamaat-e-Islami, a pro-Pak and rabidly communal party (which openly challenges Kashmir’s accession to India …”
Lest an ordinary reader not well versed in the intricacies of Indian politics be confused, it may be recalled that the CPI and its “progressive” allies told us a long time ago that the RSS and the Jamaat had come together under the auspices of the CIA. Of course, when they first took us into confidence in this regard, the theory was that this alliance was intended to destabilize Mrs. Gandhi’s regime.
Using Hindu Sentiment
Mr. Rao will deny that he has charged Mrs. Gandhi with being a Hindu communalist. Indeed, he can quote a paragraph from the article which says: “This is not to suggest that Indira Gandhi is becoming a Hindu communalist, but that she is now skilfully using Hindu communal sentiments for preserving her own power. She is beating the BJP-RSS in (sic) its own game”.
This is no more than an attempt on his part to allow himself an exit. It can deceive no one. For one thing, Mr. Rao would have no reason to quarrel with Mrs. Gandhi if she was doing no more than using “Hindu communal sentiments” for keeping herself in power and in the process keeping the BJP and its potential allies such as the casteist Lok Dal out of it. After all, even the great Stalin used the nationalist and religious sentiments of the Russian people to fight the Nazis without in the final analysis surrendering to them. For another, Mr. Rao’s true intentions become clear as he proceeds further to elaborate his theme.
“Indira Gandhi allows some of her ministers and legislators to attend functions of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, a broad platform floated by the RSS leadership … of late, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi has been found to be hesitating to take strong action against communal elements fanning communal riots. The case of the recent Meerut riots …. is a case (sic) in point …. she has had harsh words to say in reply to a letter from the famous INA hero and patriot, General Shah Nawaz, …. who had brought the depredations of the PAC and the RSS against Muslims to her notice …. she has also said that no minority can survive if their neighbours of the majority are irritated.”
As if this was not enough to demonstrate that in Mr. Rao’s view, Mrs. Gandhi is a Hindu communalist – she even visits temples and seeks the blessings of Sankaracharyas – he adds: “It will not be wide off the mark to suspect that her attitude in (sic) keeping the Punjab dispute hanging was in a way connected with the Jammu and Kashmir election where she was angling for Hindu votes”. So Mrs. Gandhi is not only a communalist but a reckless one. She is willing to place at risk the future of Punjab for the sake of so limited an advantage as winning Hindu votes in the Jammu region.
This is so much hogwash. Whatever her failings, Mrs. Gandhi is neither communal nor parochial. In fact, her great strength is that she can identify herself with the aspirations of all sections of the Indian people. Yet the charge merits attention for it shows how far the CPI and its allies are prepared to go in their current campaign against Mrs. Gandhi and it provides an insight into their thinking.
Perverse Approach
The CPI, in order to survive, needs an alliance with the CPM which is locked in a bitter struggle with the Congress (I) in West Bengal, the only state where it is in power. As such the CPI leadership has to be critical of Mrs. Gandhi. Even so, it is somewhat of a mystery why Mr. Rajeswara Rao has gone so far as to accuse her of being a Hindu communalist. It is not easy to find out what he hopes to achieve.
Perhaps there is a purpose in all this which we are not able to discover. But purpose or no purpose, the article speaks of a perverse way of looking at Indian politics. This approach is not peculiar to Indian communists, though it is much more deeply embedded in their mental make-up than those of others. It affects the thinking of many other shallow secularists.
The story began a long time ago. Gandhiji was a Hindu communalist because he spoke a language which sprang out of an ancient ethos which the British had deliberately equated with the Hindu ethos. The Congress was less than a fully nationalist movement because its leadership and membership were predominantly Hindu. Hindus were a community like every other community despite all evidence to the contrary. As such Muslim fears of being dominated in independent and democratic India were justified because they would be a minority, though an extremely powerful one, in it. By this peculiar logic the Muslim League’s demand for partition became legitimate. And Mr. Nehru’s party and government were secular only because they came to be critically dependent on the support of the Muslim minority, the scheduled castes and tribes.
Mr. Rajeswara Rao and his ilk suspect that this may change to the extent that Mrs. Gandhi and her party get a larger share of the caste Hindu vote in north India. So they are alarmed. They are not even willing to wait to bid out whether the shift in vote that we have witnessed in the Union territory of Delhi and the Jammu region is also likely in the truly Hindi-speaking states such as UP and Bihar where the deepest contradictions are not between Hindus and Muslims or Hindus and Sikhs but between different Hindu caste groupings. They must have a very poor opinion of Mrs. Gandhi if they believe that in her search for a little larger share of the caste Hindu vote, she will take steps which will weaken her popular base among Muslims, Harijans and tribals, or that she will not do all in her power to regain support in Andhra, Karnataka and, indeed, even Tamil Nadu.
Social Change
I have often taken the view that Hindus are not a community in a meaningful sense of the term. This formulation apparently clashes with the fact that there are communal-minded Hindus in that they believe in the supremacy of Hindus and are prejudiced against Muslims. But the contradiction is superficial. Setting aside for the moment the fact that Hindus have so catholic a view of religion, god, reality and truth that they can easily concede equality to every other faith, Hindus are incapable of acting as one coherent body for any length of time.
Social change is aggravating this problem because the competition between groups and within groups is sharpening. Thus we are witnessing politicization of caste and erosion of caste at the same time. In plain terms, on top of the problems of caste are being piled up the problems associated with the emergence of class distractions. The whole thing is an unholy mess. Only the simple-minded – Marxist ideologues are notoriously simple-minded and so are free enterprise wallahs – can believe that Mrs. Gandhi can seek to stay in power on the basis of an arithmetic which no one can possibly work out. If it was all so easy, the Jana Sangh would have made it a long time ago.
As it happens, this was perhaps the first newspaper to draw attention to the shift in the voting pattern in Delhi and the possibility of a similar shift in the Jammu region before the election. We were able to do so because we were sensitive to the possible impact of the Congress (I) defeat in the South and the Akali agitation on the minds of Hindu voters in these two places. But we cautioned against rushing to conclusions. For we have learnt from experience that India is too variegated a country to admit of sweeping generalizations.
As for Mrs. Gandhi, she is both the beneficiary and victim of the broader and deeper movements which are taking place in the country. It will be giving her too much credit to believe that she maps our strategy so well that she manages to stay on top whatever happens. She travels light (in borrowed ideological terms) and is, therefore, able to take advantage of developments. She may also equate her good with the nation’s good. But most rulers do the same. She is not indifferent to the national interest which appeal to communalism of whatever variety cannot subserve.
The Times of India, 22 June 1983