Vajpayee146;s choice

I do not know what Chief Minister Narendra Modi will do now or the VHP, which has already ridiculed the PM8217;s words. Their entire campaign has been built on hate and they have directed their ire at Muslims. At the many yatras that Modi and VHP have undertaken, they have derided the community, apart, of course, from attacking Congress president Sonia Gandhi for her Italian origins.

It is now up to the Gujarat electorate to give a befitting reply to Modi and the VHP at the hustings. Hindus do not have to follow the Hindutva that has come to represent fanaticism, chauvinism and all that goes with it. The Hindu religion is against arousing communal passions. It believes in a composite society because it is a religion that is innately pluralistic in content. Modi and the VHP are trying to disfigure it. But they will not succeed because they are attempting to impose parochialism on a country which is essentially pluralistic in its ethos.

I recall how Margaret Thatcher, then the British prime minister, commended India8217;s example to Mikhail Gorbachev, who was still heading the Soviet Union. He asked her what he should do to hold the country together. She said: 8216;8216;I told him that he must talk to his best friends, the Indians, to find out how they have sustained themselves as one country despite disparities of religion, language, region and caste.8217;8217;

Both the BJP and VHP seem to imagine that a principle can only be stoutly defended by the language of violence and by condemning those who do not accept it. For both, there are no shades of grey, there is only black and white. That is the old approach of the bigoted. It is not the approach of tolerance, it does not acknowledge that perhaps others might also claim some share of the truth. Speaking for myself, I find this approach wholly unscientific, unreasonable and uncivilised, whether applied in the realm of religion, to economic theory or anything else.

The prime minister has rightly appealed to the Hindutva crowd to focus on issues 8216;of development and governance8217;, and not on 8216;matters that vitiate the atmosphere8217;. He has really spoken as the country8217;s leader, cutting across party lines. The Atal who had got lost in the rhetoric at Goa has reappeared, at least for the time being. All political parties should support his approach, particularly the Congress. Contentious matters are vitiating the atmosphere and tearing the nation apart. The minorities live in fear. The very homogeneity of the country is at stake.

I was not surprised at the abusive language the VHP used against the EC, particularly its chief J.M. Lyngdoh. A body which openly says it will not accept even the Supreme Court8217;s verdict on the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute cannot be expected to respect the sanctity of the law. For it institutions are playthings, to be trifled with at will.

What pained me, though, was the attitude of the BJP. It leads the coalition at the Centre and has the home portfolio in its charge. The party8217;s criticism of the commission8217;s members was as irresponsible as that of the VHP. To describe the unanimous decision to stop the yatra in Gujarat as 8216;not appropriate8217; smacks of playing politics, something which the ruling party should not be seen to indulge in.

How does the Election Commission8217;s decision become 8216;inappropriate8217;? What should the Election Commission do when the Gujarat administration itself sends a report that there was a likelihood of communal tension and passions getting heightened by the proposed yatra. The commission felt justifiably concerned at reports that the proposed yatra was to use the replica of the Sabarmati Express coach which was set on fire near Godhra on February 27.

We have arrived at a stage in the country when any attempt to forcibly impose ideas on a large section of the people is bound to fail. In the present circumstances, this will lead to violence and tremendous destruction. There will be no victory in this for anyone 8212; only defeat.