HE ghastly killing of Graham Stewart Staines by Bajrang Dal activists is the logical culmination of Hindutya's campaign of anti-minority hatred. It just won’t do to condemn the incident without relating it causally to the sangh parivar's anti-Christian witchhunt. The barbaric method used to kill the missionary bears testimony to the base passions that the parivar is stoking. These passions are reinforced by the legitimacy that the BJP's top leaders have bestowed upon Hindutva fanatics, None other than Mr A.B. Vajpayee did this when he called for a ''national debate" on conversions. This conceded that the Dangs attacks were "provoked" by "forced" conversions.
Mr L.K. Advani added his own vitriol to this by declaiming that 70 per cent of all foreign contributions to charities eO to Church groups. This was ased on half-truths: nunjbers pertaining to a single quarter, which are unrepresentative. The charge of "forced conversion" involves arrogant paternalism, coming as it does not from those who’ have converted, but from their self-appointed guardians. Unless those who were "forced" feel aggrieved and say so. society must treat conversion as a deeply personal matter. The objection to this comes from upper- caste
Hindus who "know better", and want to "rescue" "poor", “igno-rant" tribals from the missionaries. Mr Vajpayee obviously sympathises with the paternalists. However, he should know that the Constitution has something called "basic structure": that Includes the freedom to practise and propagate religion. The "basic structure" is not open to amendment, Mr Vajpayee must have also known that the politicgl'impact of his endorsement of the anti-conversion agenda would be to fan the flames of anti-minority hatred.
The fact that those flames consumed Staines is purely incidental. They could have equally devoured a nonChristian. say, in Gujarat, sooner or later. Things may have been different had the BJP not repeatedly appeased the perpetrators of violence., Appeasement has a cruel logic. You cede a little to the bully and he'll come back for more. You give in on shilanyas in 1989. and he’ll demolish the Babri mosque in 1992. You condone
those who vandalise Husain's paintings, and they will soon want to ban "Fire", or burn Ambedkar's ‘Riddles of Hinduism".... You stoke jingoism and machismo through Tokha-ran-it and you'll have an explosion of bigotry, neighbourbashing and nught-is- right tub-thumping. Many of our parties, including the BJP's own friends, understand this logic. Even the Telugu Desam says the BJP has lost moral authority. But our biggest party is turning a blind eye to it. Instead of confronting Hindutva. the Congress is busy discovering secular virtues in Hinduism and trying to win upper-caste support.
No other interpretation of its Working Committee's January 16 resolution declaring Hinduism as "the most effective guarantor of secularism" is permissible. This is further underscored by Ms Sonia Gandhi's recent speeches in Delhi and Pune. After Tirupati. Ms Gandhi plans to visit Hardwar and Belur. Even as she attacks "the merchants of poison and hatred", she quotes liberally
from Hindu scriptures. There is nothing wrong with holding such views, or claiming that tolerance lies at the "authentic" core, if not lived in reality, of a particular religion. What causes problems — and there are big — is the proposition that "tolerant" Hinduism is secularism’s "guarantor". Similar Claims about "core" tolerance can be made in respect of most religions.
But it can also be plausibly claimed that all religions .have elements of intolerance. What is special about Hinduism is not tolerance, but polytheism, multiple sects and plural forms of worship. Once the Congress says Hinduism is uniquely tolerant, with what conviction can it oppose "Hindu rashtra"? It is even abandoning the dilute sarva dharma samabhava version of secularism. Secondly, is Hinduism really all that tolerant?
The claim is unconvincing because today’s Hinduism is inseparable from casteism and belief in social hierarchy. Indeed, the claim appears
grotesque at the end of a decade that saw the Babri demolition. much communal carnage, and injection of religious hatred into organs of the state and society. Third, it is illegitimate to equate tolerance with secularism. Secularism means the basic separation of religion from politics. Secularism is uncompromising on tolerance. Religions may be ambivalent, After all. faith usually demands unflinching adherence to Some notion of the divine, of salvation, of the Other World. This could make for intolerance towards other faiths.
The pre-modern idea of tolerance is about co-existence with, or indifference towards, other religions. You tolerate them although you know they have not seen the bight. The modern conception of tolerance involves an active relationship; it has to do with respect, empathy and understanding for others. You are tolerant because you are secular and believe that religion and politics should not be
mixed so each retains its integrity. Modern tolerance derives from secular, universal values of citizenship. It completely opposes those who want to base politics on religion. That is the project shared by the pre- partition Muslim League with its two-nation theory, and today's Hindutva. The Congress, if it wants to resecularise itself after its long. disastrous flirtation with soft-Hindutya. must forcefully reject the communalist project.
The party has to go beyond verbal assertion. It must ac-S mobilise against the itva onslaught and defend the minorities. And it must fight Hindutvals reactionary social function: maintaining hierarchies that guard the powerful. This means the Congress will have to identify with the underprivileged. with forces of justice arid social transformation. The party has not yet fallen’ for "soft- Hindutva". It is only flirting with a "soft-on-Hindutva’’ line. If it proceeds further in that direction, it could become the BJP's B-team. To avoid this fate, the Congress must break with all shades of communalism and adopt an agenda of empowerment and social emancipation. That alone is secularism's "guarantor”.