Hindu Munnani turns 25

Hindu Munnani turns 25
FOC

In spite of floods, cyclone, lake breaches and loss of livelihood in Tamil Nadu, more than 50,000 Hindus from all over the state converged at Dindigul, a district place near Madurai, on December 18, 2005.

They were there to attend the Silver Jubilee Conference of Hindu Munnani. This by now has become a household name in the state for many good reasons, which are: 1. It was the Hindu Munnani that provided leadership to Hindus in reinstalling the deity (a Shivalingam) in the Jalakanteshwara temple in Vellore. For 400 years it had been a temple without deity. Muslim hordes had plundered its premises. This boosted the sagging Hindu morale. 2. Whenever Hindu interests are trampled upon, Hindus, cutting across political affiliations impulsively unite under the Hindu Munnani banner to ensure that their voice is heard. 3. Sending clear signals to political parties that Hindu votes could no more be taken for granted was made feasible by Hindu Munnani.

“The identity and the specialty of Hindus are being eroded systematically. To stop this, every Hindu who is aware of this has to be a walking journalist. He should be a mobile broadcaster like a radio or a television,” this was the idea gathered by all in the Conference. It was a gala event as marked by dances by children at the inauguration and various forms of folk arts like Kolattam, Oyilattam, etc. during the massive rally. The Munnani activists in the form of Hindu deities like Rama, Lakshmana, Kartikeya and Anjaneya attracted the people’s attention. A torch was carried from Coimbatore in memory of those people who sacrificed their lives during and after the Coimbatore bomb blasts. It took about one and a half hour for the procession to cross one point.

Though many Hindu Munnani leaders were murdered, still the organisation goes from strength to strength with new people taking up the places of those killed by miscreants.

Shri M. Venkaiah Naidu, senior BJP leader, while speaking on the occasion said, “This country is Hindustan. Why should we not call this country a Hindu one?”

The founder of Hindu Munnani, Shri Ramagopalan said though many Hindu Munnani leaders were murdered, still the organisation goes from strength to strength with new people taking up the places of those killed by miscreants with a view to creating chaos and to stop the growth of the Munnani. He said there would not be any dearth of people who would be ready to lay down their lives for Hinduism. “Our goal is to destroy the evil and see that goodness triumphs. This is the work of God. So, we are doing godly work, he said.

“The Munnani is 25 years old now. The time before Munnani was formed was a shameful period in the history of Tamil Nadu. This was a time when a person would feel shame and fear to call himself a Hindu. Though many indignities were meted out to the Hindu deities, it is with God’s grace we have come this far. We are nothing but tools in the hands of God,” he added.

Hindus’ Anguish, an audiotape, a small brochure, which contains information pertaining to Islamic terrorist outfits operating by various names, their ways and means and a leaflet, 125 questions to the pseudo secular brigade were also released.

Just as Christians and Muslims get aid from the government to start schools and colleges, Hindus should also be aided by the government for the same.

RESOLUTIONS

The following important resolutions were adopted by the massive assembly of Hindus:


Conversion to other religions is the biggest hurdle faced by us. So, we need to keep up the vigil and stop any more conversions of Hindus taking place around us.

Small family is aimed at reducing the number of Hindus in our country.

Uniform Civil Code needs to be implemented immediately.

We need to recognise this country as a Hindu State, and laws need to be passed to identify it as such.

Church funds and lands are managed by churches; mosque funds and lands are managed by mullahs; then why do temples and temple funds are managed by the State? This has to be handed over to a private trust constituted by the Hindus.

We should make people aware of the increase in Muslim population. Street plays may be organised.

Children should be aware of the religious greatness. This needs to be taught in schools. Just as Christians and Muslims get aid from the government to start schools and colleges, so also should Hindus be aided by the government to do the same.

Just as Haj pilgrims get aid from the government, so also should Hindu pilgrims who go to Kailash Mansarovar, Kashi and Rameswaram yatras.

There is a plan afoot to convert Kanyakumari into Virgin Mary Kumari. We need to stop this.

Ramanathapuram is becoming a den for the Islamic terrorists. The State government is being warned by the Hindu Munnani.

The RSS should have a foreign policy

The RSS should have a foreign policy
By Radha Rajan

Fears about being labeled ‘Hindu nationalists’ and fears about being abused for ‘militarist and territorial nationalism’ restrained the BJP from formulating and fine-tuning their core belief. A well-defined foreign policy is crucial in governance if Hindus have the vision and are determined to maintain their sphere of control and influence in the region. India’s foreign policy in that case, must necessarily have two components—ideology and pragmatism. While ideology defines the character and intent of the objectives of foreign policy, pragmatism is a tactical instrument to attain the objectives. For Hindu nationalists ideology in foreign policy can only derive from the Hindu worldview which will view statecraft driven by Islam, Christianity, capitalism and Marxism as being inherently predatory by nature and therefore a serious threat to the Hindu way of life. But this is placing the cart before the horse. Hindus need state power to implement a foreign policy consistent with Hindu worldview and Hindu interests.

I personally find the idea behind performing the ashvamedha yajna absolutely breathtaking. The ashvamedha yajna can teach our think-tank foreign policy experts, PMO aspirants and wannabe Track II players a thing or two about defining national interests and how to go about securing them. The ashvamedha yajna was performed by a powerful king, only upon instructions from his Rajaguru or dharmic preceptor to establish dharma or rule of righteousness as far away and as widely around his kingdom as his capability to enforce it. It was also intended to send a strong signal to the kings of other big and small kingdoms that he intended to keep the entire region traversed by the horse firmly under his influence and control. A king who exercised such far reaching control and influence on the strength of his moral authority and military might was acknowledged as chakravarti. In modern parlance such a state would be considered a regional or global power.

The king performing the ashvamedha yajna had to wait until such time as the Rajaguru was convinced that the king had achieved the stature accruing from high moral authority and demonstrable military strength. In short a king could not undertake this high yajna without one or the other. Moral authority alone without the matching military might to enforce dharma could not achieve the objectives of the ashvamedha. Similarly military might without the matching high moral authority would only have reduced the king to an asuravijayi or a maniac super power. The ashvamedha yajna was therefore a yajna and not a lustful march for conquest of territories or plundered wealth.

Sri Rama and Yudhishtra undertook the asvamedha yajna to establish dharma, demonstrate their military might and to reinforce their authority both within the kingdom and in the region. The ashvamedha yajna also has this lesson for the de-Hinduised Indian polity—that the King must not only demonstrate his military might but must also signal his readiness to use force to attain the objectives of the yajna. In the Jain tradition, king Bharata of Ayodhya belonged to the Ikshvaku dynasty and was the son of Rishabdev the first tirthankara. When he performed the ashvamedha yajna, one of the kings who incurred Bharata’s displeasure was the king of a neighboring kingdom who had to face Bharata in war for taxing his subjects unfairly.

A well-defined foreign policy is crucial in governance if Hindus have the vision and are determined to maintain their sphere of control and influence in the region. India’s foreign policy, in that case, must necessarily have two components—ideology and pragmatism.

Against this civilisational understanding of what constitutes the basis for international relations and what it means to be a regional power, ideology in contemporary foreign policy must mirror nothing but national interest and national interest derives from national identity. In today’s context India must attempt to perform the ashvamedha yajna through its foreign policy with the singular objective that India is a Hindu nation and will seek to control its immediate neighborhood and influence the Asian continent to defend Hindu territory and protect Hindu interests. Serious threats to Hindus and their territory is posed by jehadi Islam, evangelising Christianity, Marxism/Maoism/Naxalism, Chinese and American expansionist intentions and failed, failing and unstable states. All countries in the immediate vicinity of the Indian nation have been overrun by one or more of these threats.

The Arthashastra of Kautilya states that neighboring countries pose the biggest threat to national security and must therefore be considered to be potential enemies always. Chanakya also counseled subjugating them and keeping them under our control. Today there is no such thing as the near or distant enemy. The distant enemy is present in the immediate vicinity of our nation and Hindu nationalists must wake up to the menacing and encircling presence of China and the US in the region which we must seek to control.

The time has come for the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to devise a foreign policy which will achieve for us the twin objectives of keeping not only our own territory under the control of the Hindus of this country but also the region in our vicinity. This has become an urgent need.

The NDA government had neither the world view nor the political will to use force to perform a contemporary ashvamedha yajna. The UPA government too does not have them because unlike the BJP, it does not even pretend to want to undertake the yajna. The RSS must therefore apply itself to devising a foreign policy consistent with our world view and our interests. The BJP for its turn must cultivate a Hindu understanding of the use of force not only to establish righteousness but also to subjugate the enemy. The post-Godhra Gujarat riots were an exemplary lesson of society’s initiative and response to jehadi Islam, a lesson that some of the BJP’s leaders failed to learn or understand. The Americans however understood only too well and denying Narendra Modi visa to travel to the US was intended to humiliate Hindu nationalists who presumed to teach the world how to deal with Islamic terrorism.

The RSS must therefore apply itself to devising a foreign policy consistent with our world view and our interests. The BJP for its turn must cultivate a Hindu understanding of use of force not only to establish righteousness but also to subjugate the enemy.

The Americans realised that if they let the message of the Gujarat riots prevail unchallenged then they would be triggering the beginning of the end to their presence in Asia and the Middle-East. And that is why the US wants to retain all rights to deal with Islam or communism with itself. The rest of the world, India in particular, if they refuse to transform themselves into American client states, have the right only to attempt peace with their enemies.

The Chinese have realised that American presence in the regions close to their borders poses the biggest threat to their authority and are not only forging strategic alliances with Russia to ward off the threat but as in Nepal, they are seeking to increase their sphere of influence. American think-tanks and foreign policy experts do not shy away from stating bluntly that American foreign policy is only about furthering and promoting not just American self-interest but also American values. Samuel Huntington must be thanked for stating the obvious openly. “The American Creed as initially formulated by Thomas Jefferson is the crucial defining element of American identity. The Creed however was the product of the distinct Anglo-Protestant culture of the founding settlers of America in the 17th and 18th centuries. If American identity is defined by a set of universal principles of liberty and democracy then presumably the promotion of these principles in other countries should be the primary goal of American foreign policy”. The US is seeking to conquer the world for the sake of the American Creed. This is the core of all American foreign policy. It is a predatory lust for power that is devoid of moral authority and powered only by military might. The American state’s ruthless ambition to subjugate the rest of the world makes it the classic asuravijayi.

China however is determined not to let the US overrun the region. India on the other hand is aspiring to become a Made-by-the-US super power. Sections of the de-nationalised Hindu elite within the Congress and the BJP would like the US to make us king so that we can become its servant. Resisting or challenging US expansionism is not on their agenda and so we find ourselves in a situation where we have a failed state to the West, a failing state on the East, an unstable state on our forehead and one at our feet, the growing menace of international jehadi and Maoist terrorism and the menacing presence of America and China all around us. We have acquired neither the moral authority nor the military strength or the political will to perform the ashvamedha yajna. This must top the RSS agenda now.

Ideology has enduring charm

Ideology has enduring charm
By Udayan Namboodiri

Politics without ideology is like Diwali without Lakshmi Puja. Or Durga Puja without new clothes. Onam without jantraparam. Winter without Christmas.

For some years now, an argument making the rounds in some influential circles of intellectuals holds that politics based on conviction has reached a dénouement. Francis Furukawa had stated in the early 1990s that the end of the Cold War was to be understood as the complete victory of capitalism over socialism. According to him, the disintegration of the Soviet Union in climax to the all-round collapse of Marxism-Leninism based societies in the late 1980s could be viewed as the end of human historical progression. Unlike Huntington’s Clash of Civilisations theory that caused an uproar of dissent among intellectuals everywhere, Furukawa’s End of History thesis received more acceptance.

After history departs from the stage, what happens to ideology? I think the whole hypothesis is based on a surreal projection of man’s political dimension. Furukawa’s doctrine was produced in the aftermath of terrific self-congratulation (some of it justified) after the fall of the “evil empire”. He belongs to a generation which had “isms” hanging like mill stones from the collective neck thanks to a mortal combat between the twin philosophies of Communism and Capitalism. December 1991 was liberation time to people in universities, think tanks and policy making chambers because no longer was it necessary to colour documents to either pole of thought. Furukawa and his ilk surmised—to some extent rightly—that henceforth there would no longer be conflicting obsessions because, quite simply, the conflict was over.

It was to their good fortune that the forces of liberalisation and globalization were unleashed through a more institutionalised process soon afterwards. Societies, even where materialism and over-consumption were unheard of, got caught in the whirlwind of activity focused on pursuing the good life. Furukawa predicted that the next 100 years or so would see the human consciousness detached from spiritualism and there would be resistance to any school of thought questioning the Gospel of St. Market.

Unlike Huntington’s Clash of Civilisations theory that caused an uproar of dissent among intellectuals everywhere, Furukawa’s End of History thesis received more acceptance.

Has it really happened that way? Evidently not. Politics still thrives because of the nature of man. The divisions in human society which many at the beginning of the last decade of the twentieth century believed were transient, cannot yet be wished away. Politics exists because there are divisions. More than ever before, men and women are pinning for a spiritual underpinning to their lives. This is manifested in manifold forms of booms, whether in studying the Bhagavad Gita in the United States or mastering Pranayam in India. The Church, both Christian and Islamic, have made a comeback in societies where they were either suppressed or invisible. The “Clash of Civilisations” must be understood in terms beyond the conflict between “Bushism” and the burgeoning might of the new Left – militant Islam. It stems from a quest for a better society and a purer future. As long as human beings are human beings, this quest will never cease.

In the Indian context, a slogan called “Bijli, Sadak, Pani” seems to have overwhelmed the chattering classes of New Delhi. Its attractiveness has a lot to do with their disenchantment with the competition for various shades of socialism which have inundated the development track. There is optimism in these circles that, somehow, the political forces that dominate our lives would submerge their respective visions of a new India and focus entirely on building social and economic infrastructure.

But two wrongs cannot make a right. It would be cataclysmic if national politics comes to be marked by a competition for votes by parties obsessed with bridges and roads. This is not to say that such facilities are unimportant, but who has ever missed bridges and roads in an earlier age? The decision to build social and economic infrastructure should flow from a political party’s strategy to make India rich and powerful. And that strategy should not be commercial or “developmental”, but based on a spiritual core. The impetus must come from ideology because unless a political party has one, it can never dream. Without the ability to dream, one would wither away.

Even the most commercial societies are ideology driven. Ideology is that fuel which drives a person into the hurly burly of politics. Most people are content with leading narrow lives. They are the Bijli-Sadak-Pani types; obsessed with making a good living, producing children and dying in comfort. But among us there are a few who tremble with excitement at the thought of serving society through holding high office. The “bee in the bonnet” is a basic dissatisfaction towards present conditions. Subhas Chandra Bose, who I consider the greatest Indian of the twentieth century, would have been content to live the life of a covenanted Indian Civil Service officer under the Raj. But he chucked it up in preference to the hard life of an “Indian pilgrim” because of the ideological drive.

In 2004, BBC conducted a survey among young Indians to find out who their greatest icon was. The largest number of votes went to Netaji. This is proof of the enduring validity of ideology in national life. Politics should be considered as the purest pursuit provided men like Netaji are attracted to it. The “end of ideology” would mean handing over the mantle to contractors and carpet baggers.

It’s the brand equity

It’s the brand equity
By Prasanna Acharya

Ideology acts as a light house to polity and leads to self-examination. It helps form an attitude, a pattern of behaviour and a way of life.

Polity without ideology is like a rudderless vessel in a stormy sea. As the earth revolves around the sun so also ideology shows the right path and helps the polity to gather energy from it. Without ideology we cannot even dream of the existence of polity. When polity signifies any political organisation or a body of people organised under a system of government, ideology is bound to rule that organisation or body of people.

Ideology acts as a light house to polity and leads to self-examination. It helps form an attitude, a pattern of behaviour and a way of life. Polity is bound to lose its credibility when it is devoid of ideology. If we cast a bird’s eyeview on the world history, great revolutions and political movements, we can very well see the influence of ideology on them. No movement or revolution is possible without a firm commitment to ideology.

Ideology has no friends and foes. It treats all as equal. For the establishment of ideology, Lord Rama had to abandon Sita. Though Pandavs were five in number, against the 100 Kauravas, they were able to attain the victory after the great war of Kurukshetra because of their firm commitment to their ideology, which is satya and dharma. In the modern times also, we can find numerous such examples during freedom struggle and after, where ideology determined the world of polity.

No movement or revolution is possible without a firm commitment to ideology.

The path away from ideology is suicidal for polity and harmful for both the individual in particular and the nation in general. When individual drifts away from ideology he cannot discriminate between good and evil and is bound to be dominated by base instincts. Ideology sublimates these instincts and facilitates the values to grow in the individual, which is complementary in polity.

Ideology works as a binding force where individual interests are bound to take back seat or else polity will be a one-man show, negating the true democratic values.

Ideology rules the world—be it human or nature—and establises a set of values. Polity being our instrument to run the society, it is bound to be based on certain hard-earned values. Even in world history people were killed in the name of ideology; great wars were also fought in the name of ideology. But ideology should not be a mere instrument in the hands of polity to come to power because gathering political powers is neither the beginning nor the end of ideology. Rather it is a means in the hands of polity to work for the betterment of humanity. It is the way to enable people to improve their conditions in every sphere of life. Political power is the way to regulate national life.

“If national life becomes so perfect as to become self-regulated, no representation is necessary,” said Gandhiji. And this self-regulation could only be achieved, if there is a complete and firm commitments of polity to its ideology. It may sound utopian but not impossible. At least, we can raise ourselves from the present state of frustration.

(The writer is a Member of Parliament, Biju Janata Dal.)

Core issues cannot be discarded

Core issues cannot be discarded
By Umesh Upadhyay

Broadly an ‘ideology’ can be defined as a set of values, beliefs and principles that guide a political party. All the policies and actions of that political party should be in conformity with these core values. All political parties claim that they have distinct ideologies. Theoretically speaking, it makes sense as otherwise we don’t need to have to so many political parties. Every political party comes into existence to propagate its values. It generates public opinion on what it thinks is right for the country or the people it represents.

In a democratic system, a political party must also have a share in decision making and hence it enters into electoral politics. Here comes the dilemma that all parties face. Do they seek votes only from those believing in their ideology? Not possible. As the core supporters of any political party are always in a limited number, it seeks to broaden its ‘appeal’. It goes for compromises and thus creates alliances. But how much a political party should compromise in the power game in a democracy? Or can you depend on ideology as a basic tool to do the business of statecraft? Power Politics vs. Ideology therefore, is the real issue.

If we look at the broad political formations today in India, we have two national parties, the Congress and the BJP. Communist parties are essentially regional but they have a distinct ideology. There are regional parties like PDP, NC, Akali Dal, Shivsena, NCP, BJD, AIADMK and DMK, etc. Then there are the so called socialist parties like SP, RJD, JD(U) and JD(S). Most of them are socialist just for name sake only as they are run like private limited companies belonging to one family. The Bahujan Samaj Party has a different orientation. It is personality based and thus has more or less become a regional party.

Congress, right from the freedom struggle days has been described as an umbrella organisation where people having different ideologies come together. But long back the party lost whatever little ideological clarity it had when it became synonymous with the Nehru-Gandhi family. That practically leaves only the BJP and the communists parties. Both claim to be ideology led and cadre based organisations.

The BJP having its roots in Jana Sangh started with a distinctive ideology. It was perceived to be an alternative to the Congress in true sense of the term. It left some of the basic values it stood for in its quest to form a non-Congress government in Delhi. The party today looks like a pale shadow of what it was a decade back. Actually if we were to leave aside the issue of “secularism” there seems to be a thin line differentiating the Congress and the BJP. Rhetoric apart, it is difficult to decide who is a better “pseudo” secularist of the two.

It’s a very interesting state of affairs that we find in the political parties today. The moot issue is—is ideology irrelevant or it is an end of ideology in the business of statecraft as well propounded? I beg to differ. The Indian democracy was never in such a state of vacuum so far as the ideological orientation is concerned. It needs ideological and value based politic now much more than any time in its history. But and it is a big BUT, it does not need ideologies based on the past dogmas. The world no longer is the same as it was some 50 years ago. And this change is like the change that happened with the coming of the industrial revolution in Europe.

Indian democracy was never in such a state of vacuum so far as the ideological orientation is concerned. It needs ideological and value-based politics much more than any time in its history.

Running the business of statecraft has changed since the end of the Cold War in the late 20th century. The sharp ideological divide between the communists on one hand and the NATO allies on the other and the non aligned countries hanging somewhere in between is a thing of past. The post Cold War world is witnessing a total paradigm shift.

Let us understand the biggest challenges that the polity faces today. These are jehadi terrorism; “free trade” led globalization, and environmental degradation. Same old ideological tools and jargons that emerged out of them like imperialism and colonialism vs. non imperialism, secularism vs. communalism are no longer valid. But the Leftists in India continue to live in the by gone era.

While Beijing and Moscow have changed, the communists in India apply the same old remedies to the dangers that are unique to the new world of 21st century. The issue is how do you fight a madrasa born jehadi having a medieval age mind set on ideological basis? Will you teach him secularism?

The Indian political class whether secularist or otherwise needs to appreciate that they will have to take terrorism head-on. They should call a spade a spade—and understand that it is born out of an ideology that does not believe in the peaceful coexistence of all faiths—an essential Indian belief.

Running the business of statecraft has changed since the end of the Cold War in the late 20th century. The sharp ideological divide between the communists on one hand and the NATO allies on the other and the non-aligned countries hanging somewhere in between is a thing of past. The post-Cold War world is witnessing a total paradigm shift.

The other major issue that confronts the polity is, how to manage forces unleashed by free trade driven market in a developing country like India. The ideological tools and jargons of the last century have become obsolete. The conventional interpretations of terms like imperialism, swadeshi, swavalamban, etc may not be sufficient to understand the issues in a totally ‘connected’ and ‘wired’ world.

The third major problem especially for a country like India is the question of environmental degradation. With the Indian economy slated to grow at the rate of seven per cent and more, the energy needs of the country are growing phenomenally. We already have a high density of population. How does one deal with it? It is a question of survival of crores of poor people. One may argue that these are the issues to be dealt by experts. I disagree. These, I say are the fundamental ideological issues that the polity has to confront. And the survival of India as a nation depends on resolving them.

India is also on the threshold of a big change and the polity of today has to come out with ideological tools to understand this phenomenon so as to enable it to make appropriate policies. The onus lies more on national parties like the Congress and the BJP. Will the Congress come out of the dogmas of secularism and will the BJP emerge from the ideological confusion it has created for itself? Any guesses?

(The writer is the Executive Editor, Janmat TV channel. He can be contacted at C-8/8663, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110 070.)

Rajdharma as an ideology in politics

Rajdharma as an ideology in politics
By Dr S. Kalyanaraman

A nation is a cultural identity. A state is a device for administering polity. Sanatana Dharma which is nationalism should govern the devices of polity, the apparatus for conducting the affairs of the state. Dharma is called esha dhammo sanantano by Gautama Buddha and as ariya dhamma by Mahavira.

The first book of Tirukkural of Tiruvalluvar in Tamil is called aram, ‘dharma’; the second is porul, ‘wealth’; and the third is inbam ‘joy’; the three-fold division is consistent with the purushartha trivarga: dharma artha kama (duties, wealth, joy). Illaram means ‘householder’s dharma’ and is explained in 20 chapters of the first book on aram, ‘dharma’. A compound such as cid-dharma is interpreted as ‘transcendental nature’, so is manava dharma ‘human nature’, giving the word dharma a comprehensive elucidation as ‘natural order’. Rishi Kanada in Vais’es’ika sutra notes a definition of dharma by its beneficial impact, focusing on discharge of one’s responsibility: “That which leads to the attainment of Abhyudaya (prosperity in this world) and Nihsreyasa (total cessation of pain and attainment of eternal bliss hereafter) is Dharma.”

Bhishma explained to Yudhishthira: “It is very difficult to define dharma. Dharma was explained as that which helps the elevation of the human. This is the reason, this that assures well-being is assuredly dharma. The learned rishis declared: This that supports is dharma.” Like satyam, dharma was explained with reference to the beneficial effect it generates: well-being and progress of humanity. “Dharma is this that supports and that assures the progress and the well-being of all in this world and the eternal happiness in the other world. Dharma is promulgated in the form of orders (positive and negative: Vidhi and Nishedha).” This was the elucidaton of Madhvacharya in his commentary on Parasarasmruti. This rendering of the semantics of dharma explains why dharma covered all aspects of life for the well-being of the individual and also the samajam.

Dharma unites. Religion and its obverse secularism divide. Religion is a restrictive canvas related to modes of worship of a divinity called by a variety of names.

Dharma unites. Religion and its obverse secularism divide. Religion is a restrictive canvas related to modes of worship of a divinity called by a variety of names. Religion and its obverse secular is restrictive in relating to parts of society. Dharma is all-encompassing and resolves conflicts. Religion and secular foment conflicts. “The word ‘Hindu’ was first used by the Muslim invaders of the middle ages to describe the inhabitants of the valley of the sand dunes. But the culture that we know now as Hinduism and that the Indian ones call Sanatana Dharma—the Law Eternal—precedes this name by thousands of years. This is more than a religion, more than the theological direction in which the west understands religion. One can believe in all divinities or in no divinity and remain Hindu. This is a manner to living.” (Kerry Brown, The Essential Teachings of Hinduism; loc. cit. Rama Jois, Dharmarajya or true government according to dharma.

Within this all-enveloping framework, dharma as applied to governance, called rajdharma is explained as the facilitation of individuals of the samajam attaining the purushartha of dharma, artha and kaama without transgressing dharma, the ethical principles of conduct and inter-personal relationships. This is affirmed by Barhaspatya sutra, II-43-44: “The goal of rajaniti (polity) is the accomplishment of dharma, artha, kaama. Artha and kaama must be subject to the test of dharma. Dharma was supreme law of the state and rulers and subjects alike were subservient to this law. Dharma is the constitutional law of modern parlance, explaining the contours of the functions and responsibilities of the state, constraining the ruler by regulations which restrain the exercise of sovereignty by the ruler - a parallel to the paradigm of checks and balances enshrined in modern constitutions to prevent abuse of power while ensuring equal protection to the subjects without discrimination. “Just as the mother Earth gives an equal support to all for living, a king must give support to all without no discrimination.” (Manusmruti). “The king must furnish protection to associations following ordinances of the Veda (Naigamas) which protection should extend to all - those non-believers (paashandi) and to others as well.” (Naradasmruti, Dharmakos’a, p. 870). The absence of discrimination, provisions to check abuse of power and enjoining the state to promote the individual’s and samajam’s activities for the attainment of purushartha [achieving the goals of life — of dharma (righteous conduct), of artha (economic well-being) and of kaama (mental well-being)] are the key facets of rajdharma. Such a rajdharma is beyond secular and is a sacred trust to be administered with diligence and commitment.

Dharma is the constitutional law of modern parlance, explaining the contours of the functions and responsibilities of the state.

Such a rajdharma is exemplified by Ramarajyam which is evoked by many rulers of Bharatam in many parts of the nation in their references to Sri Ramachandra as the ideal ruler whose example the rulers hoped to emulate in rendering social justice and in regulating the affairs of the state. Ramarajyam is a dharma polity, governed by a dharma constitution. This is the reason why Valmiki refers to Rama in eloquent terms: Ramo vigrahavan dharmah. (Rama is the very embodiment of dharma).

The two great epics Ramayana and Mahabharata and the Bhagavata Purana explain dharma in action, the application of the ‘ordering principles’ in specific real-life situations, in moments of creative tension such as when a proponent like Arjuna had to decide to fight against his own kith and kin, members of his own kula. This moment of decision results in the delineation of the dharmakshetra (the domain of dharma) in that song celestial, Bhagavadgita. An enduring metaphor of the Bhagavatam is samudramanthanam: deva and asura apparently in conflict work together to harness the resources of the ocean by churning the ocean together. This togetherness to achieve artha and kaama is a dharmic cooperative endeavour, an example of a samajam in harmony, pulling together for a common purpose - that purpose is loka hitam, ‘well-being of loka’. Loka hitam is the touchstone which determines the dharmic nature of positive action. Just as satyam is truth that is pleasing, dharma is action which is loka-hitaaya ‘for the well-being of the society’. How should such action be performed or such responsibility be discharged? Governed by ethical conduct, a social ethic which respects the responsibilities being discharged by everyone in society.

The word “Hindu” was first used by the Muslim invaders of the middle ages to describe the inhabitants of the valley of the sand dunes. But the culture that we now know as Hinduism and that the Indian ones call Sanatana Dharma—the Law Eternal—precedes this name by thousands of years.

(The writer is Director, Sarasvati Research Centre and can be contacted at kalyan97@gmail.com)

Ideology as a new deal in crossing frontiers

Ideology as a new deal in crossing frontiers
By Prafull Goradia

The concept of ideology was introduced by a philosopher named A.L.C. Destutt de Tracy at the time of the French Revolution which began in 1789. He believed that by introducing a science of ideas, he would be eliminating the role of religion in the running of polity.

Until the 16th century, religion was looked upon as a total system with the help of which the polity could be guided. Thereafter, the concept of secularism, or the separation of the church from the state, began to take hold of the ruling classes. Nevertheless, the vacuum caused by the separation was not filled until nationalism as a legitimate inspiration for a country began to emerge. Later, other ideologies were introduced; for example, Capitalism, Marxism and Fascism, etc.

The polity, which is not an absolute monarchy, needs political parties to form a government in the country. In the old days, most countries had absolute monarchies. Today, the outstanding examples are the Sheikhdoms of West Asia, Saudi Arabia being the largest. Ideology provides the intellectual content and the direction to a political party. Above all, it provides a binding factor to a party and can enable it to lead a popular movement. The need for ideology is felt less when the party is in government and much more when it is striving for power of attempting to recover it.

Ideology provides the intellectual content and the direction to a political party. Above all, it provides a binding factor to a party and can enable it to lead a popular movement. The need for ideology is felt less when the party is in government and much more when it is striving for power or attempting to recover it.

The ebb and flow of ideology for a political party is well illustrated by the history of the Bharatiya Janata Party since its inception in 1980. It began with the Gandhian Socialism as its ideological anchor. The concept did not inspire sufficient popularity but with the espousal of Hindutva on the advent of the Ramjanmabhoomi agitation the Party was able to fire the people’s imagination. In 1998, it came to power but in coalition with a number of parties which were not at ease with Hindutva. The result was a dilution of the BJP’s ideological commitment. While in government until 2004, the dilution did not appear to do any great damage. The shocking defeat of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) in the Lok Sabha elections of 2004 was a reminder of how ideology was important. Unfortunately, the leadership felt that preserving the unity of the National Democratic Alliance was more important than the need for a return to Hindutva for the sake of safeguarding the party’s integrity.

The outstanding example of ideological dominance in a party and through the party over the polity is the communist one. In the name of dictatorship of the proletariat, a number of communist parties acquired absolute power over their countries and ruled them until the movement collapsed in 1991 with the disintegration of the Soviet Union. There were reasons for the debacle. One, that the Marxist ideology was unequal in delivering the socio-political goods. Two, the communist parties leaned excessively on ideology. Three, the party misused ideology and its pristine humanism to impose dictatorship in order to exploit the fruits of power.

All in all, the lesson of Marxism in practice was that it sent a message across the world that, no matter how poor a person was, he had his rights as a citizen of his country. The paradoxical consequence was that a poor man in a capitalist country become relatively prosperous. The other great contribution was that, to some extent, communism helped Josef Stalin in his struggle against Adolf Hitler. The ideology also did help Mao Zedong to reverse the tide of China’s decline which had taken place during the19th century and the first half of the 20th century. For the rest, communism did more damage to human civilisation than probably any other ideology.

The shocking defeat of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) in the Lok Sabha elections of 2004 was a reminder of how ideology was important. Unfortunately, the leadership felt that preserving the unity of the National Democratic Alliance was more important than the need for a return to Hindutva.

Fascism is another ideology which has not been studied sufficiently by political scientists. It represents class collaboration. It had its origin in the word fascio or a bundle implying unity in the Italian language. The idea of collaboration of all sections of the people was in contrast to Capitalism which was alleged to result in class exploitation or communism which represented class conflict. Unfortunately, the adoption of Fascism by Benito Mussolini, the pre-World War II leader of Italy, brought the ideology a great deal of disrepute. Then, Hitler’s national Socialism was alleged to be an offshoot of Fascism. This mix-up brought further infamy to Fascism and its being kept out of the halls of political science. Prejudice came in the way of class collaboration being studied in the context of what General Charles de Gaulle achieved in France between 1958 and 1968. He inspired most Frenchmen with his promise to redeem the glory of France. Symbolic of this glory was the country’s independent nuclear power called force de frappe. Gaulle’s France progressed from the position of a conflict ridden country to being amongst one of the world’s modern economies.

In a somewhat different context, the “New Deal” of President Franklin Roosevelt (1933-45) and the “New Frontiers” of John F. Kennedy were also experiments in the direction of class collaboration which brought good result for the USA.

(The author is general secretary, Bharatiya Jan Sangh and can be contacted at 145, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi-110 003.)

Uniform personal law to define nationhood

Uniform personal law to define nationhood
By Sandhya Jain

In the current atmosphere of unsolicited appeasement of the Muslim community by the ruling UPA, it seems futile to advocate a uniform civil code. Yet the time is propitious as a small village in Greater NOIDA has stood up for a motherless child. Its decision contrasts with the attitude of the ulema who in September 2004 made a sick young woman leave the husband she loved, and meets contemporary society’s notions of justice and fair play.

To recapitulate, in 1999, young Gudiya was married to Army jawan Arif, and ten days later he left for the Kargil war; she never saw him again. When the army declared him presumed dead, Gudiya was married five years later to her cousin, Taufeeq. She was eight months pregnant with his child when Arif suddenly returned from a Pakistani jail. Amidst reports of financial demands by Gudiya’s father, Arif refused to divorce her (their marriage was legally valid) and demanded she return to him. He also expressed reluctance to take responsibility for her child, an attitude that caused widespread social revulsion.

Gudiya expressed herself in favour of remaining with the second family, where she was happy. But the Muslim religious leadership decided to make her a showcase for the supremacy of the Shariat, and in a very one-sided and male-dominated televised panchayat on a well-known channel, the visibly unhappy young woman, who was then running a high fever and suffering high blood pressure, was forced to return to Arif. All secular, reformist and visible faces of the Muslim community left the poor girl to her fate.

Fourteen months later, Gudiya died a prolonged and painful death of multiple organ failure on 2 January 2006, as a result of septecaemia and other complications following a stillborn delivery last year. Despite muted media coverage, news of her death shocked many, and there was outrage when Arif went around giving press statements that he would adopt her child from Taufeeq. Many felt Gudiya would not have died if she could have lived with Taufeeq, as there would have been no immediate second pregnancy. There was also a feeling that if Arif invoked the Shariat to take back his unwilling wife, he could not infringe the rights of the biological father.

This is therefore the best time for the government to push ahead on the issue of a uniform civil code, to cater to the legitimate needs of citizens caught in a cusp between their traditional roots and a changing world.

These sentiments seemed to have weighed with Gudiya’s Kalaunda village, which has stepped forward to ensure the best interests of her infant son, Mateen. Keeping in mind the fact that both Arif and Taufeeq are young men who may marry again and have families, the panchayat has given Gudiya’s father, Imamuddin, custody of the child till he is eighteen years old. Taufeeq, the biological father, has been given guardianship rights, with the proviso that he deposit Rs. 30,000 and transfer half his property in the name of the child. The decision has been recorded on stamp paper and signed by Arif, Taufeeq, Imamuddin, and panchayat leaders Akhtar and Rajiv Sharma.

It is difficult to imagine a more just settlement, and the fact that it has arisen out of the collective wisdom of a village community shows how traditional India works when left unmolested by sensation-seeking activists and self-appointed leaders. It shows how castes and communities in India quietly cooperate to give life meaning and harmony.

The issue of Mateen’s custody shows that Muslim communities at village level are not so hidebound about adherence to a literalist interpretation of their personal laws, as is often claimed. Nor are they incapable of innovation, if spared the intrusive presence of regressive maulvis, who make their living out of terrorizing the community to fall in line with their diktat on any issue.

I believe the Gudiya tragedy has privately spurred the Muslim community to undertake a more flexible approach to its personal laws and their interpretation in a modern world. This is therefore the best time for the government to push ahead on the issue of a uniform civil code, to cater to the legitimate needs of citizens caught in a cusp between their traditional roots and a changing world. A uniform civil code would have helped Gudiya to live with the man she loved.

A uniform civil code did not require community-based approval, any more than the other provisions of the Constitution. The sole purpose of a Muslim personal law was to achieve a political goal.

Close on the heels of the Gudiya case, 25-year-old Imrana was allegedly raped by her father-in-law. When the crime became known, the caste panchayat declared her marriage dissolved and asked her to marry the alleged rapist; she was directed to treat the father of her five children as a ‘son.’ The Deoband Darul Uloom upheld the Ansari caste decision, but later denied issuing a fatwa after the matter became political with the Bharatiya Janata Party and CPI (M) condemning the judgment. This indicates that even Deoband concedes that evolving sensibilities have to be accommodated.

The Imrana case led to numerous cases of incestuous rape being reported in many parts of the country, alongside regressive judgments by local maulvis. It created awareness that Muslim women need more agency in their lives. There is a feeling that the then dominant national leader, Jawaharlal Nehru, denied Muslims equal citizenship in free India by cynically refusing to weld a tortured society into a harmonious whole, and perpetuated communal separatism to serve his votebank politics.

The Constituent Assembly shelved the uniform civil code through a subterfuge called Article 44 of the Directive Principles. A uniform civil code did not require community-based approval, any more than the other provisions of the constitution. The sole purpose of a Muslim personal law was to achieve a political goal. The nation was told that a separate civil law for Muslims did not discriminate against Hindus.

But the issue was that the personal law gave the ulema disproportionate power over the community and oppressed ordinary Muslims. The Muslim sense of being backward and disadvantaged in independent India has its genesis in this abandonment by the secular state, even though Muslims are not aware of this deeper reality. If the community realizes that its best interests are served in a uniform civil code, then a nation-wide exercise could be undertaken to revise and improve the UCC by extending positive aspects from the Islamic tradition to other groups. Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee pointed out during a parliamentary debate in 1998 that the Islamic practice of taking a woman’s consent at the time of marriage greatly appealed to him; others have appreciated the woman’s right to seek annulment of an unhappy marriage.

There is erosion of values in the system

There is erosion of values in the system
By Tarlochan Singh

The Congress, which is the oldest party and stood for India’s Independence, failed badly. In fact it is responsible for the division of the country, killing of more than half a million innocent people and migration of lakhs of people. But, it still harps on an ideology of development and unity of the country, poverty alleviation, etc. By watching the parties for years my own experience in the National Commission for Minorities has been that the parties now look only towards how to garner more votes. I feel it is the Congress party today that 18can be fully held responsible for introducing vote-bank politics in India. Wherever we go, we feel it. During every election, the religious issues are exploited.

Since 1952 when the country had the first general elections and with now having more political parties especially at the regional level in every election whether it is for the Parliament or for State Assembly, we have seen erosion of old principles on which the political parties were founded.

Today every political party tries to create a fear of “psychosis” among the minorities and create a sense of insecurity among them, which is not good for India. Political parties have been telling the minorities that we are your saviour. They create imaginary enemies and tell the minorities that against those enemies we are your friends. What sort of ideology is this? All the national parties have failed to keep the principles or goals on which they were founded. They have just one-point agenda, achieve the chair of power by hook or by crook.

Take the example of my own state, Punjab. The Akali Dal was basically a Sikh party. Their aim was that Sikhs should be fully protected in every field and they should see to it that the Sikh faith maintains its separate identity and follows its principles truly. The moment the Akalis came to power, they left this ideology. They never even thought what is their duty towards Sikhism or Sikhs.

What is the logic or ideology behind the alliance between the Congress and Deve Gowda? On what principles was it created? Nothing, except to get the power. Similarly in Uttar Pradesh, the parties are only interested to get votes and their agenda to serve the people is missing.

The second strong party in Punjab is the Congress. Although it has a national agenda, in Punjab its only aim is to get Sikh votes. I feel every Sikh Chief Minister of Congress has tried to communalise Punjab. They went ahead of Akalis to show that they are true Sikhs and in this way they even encouraged the anti-India groups. The Congress has also been embracing them with a view to harming the Akalis. So, to harm Akalis, they encouraged those who can do harm to the country and ultimately harm the Sikh community. Even today, the Punjab government is fully supporting the Punjab Congress Party and both the state government and the state unit of Congress are out to finish the Akalis without realising that this will damage Punjab and the Sikh community. They have again started indulging in vote-bank politics.

I have been watching the political parties in every state. See Karnataka, what is the logic or ideology behind the alliance between the Congress and Deve Gowda? On what principles was it created? Nothing, except to get the power. Similarly in Uttar Pradesh, the parties are only interested to get votes and their agenda to serve the people is missing. What happened in Bihar during the last 15 years ? The entire system there was for dividing the society on communal or caste basis. If the one-point agenda is only to encourage a particular caste, where is the ideology or the principle on which the political parties are working?

I am of the view that there should be an all India consensus among countrymen regarding the principles on which the political parties should work. If the elected party is not answerable to the people or is not committed to its ideology, what is the fun of having them in position? There should be some clauses where the government, the Election Commission or the people should force the parties to follow their ideology.

Ideology does not mean the ideology to divide the country or to have caste factions. The ideology means keep high principles of progress, help poor people and maintain India’s heritage, i.e. secularism, sarvadharmasambhav and respect every religion. No political party or religion in India can say that we are against this. We must keep in mind that no religion is superior or inferior. Keeping in view the unity of the country, no religion should be allowed to add more numbers, i.e. converts to its religion. It should be mandatory for all religions that for the next 20-30 years nobody will try to add numbers in his community. All political parties should come out on some of these agendas and an ideology should be the base.

Such agendas should come before the general elections and all political parties including national or regional, should stand by it. There should also be a people’s forum to ask them or to debate on these issues. Such meetings or debates should be held at least six months before the elections.

There should be an all India consensus among countrymen regarding the principles on which the political parties should work. If the elected party is not answerable to the people or is not committed to its ideology, what is the fun of having them in position?

Let the leaders commit in the public and then see whether they follow it or not. In America and other countries, we see such debates. It is only in India that there is no debate on issues and everyone seems to damage the reputation of his opponent by hook or by crook. The people’s forum should be at every village level. After all people are the masters. Why don’t they unite and come up.

Without ideology we are going into dark. This may lead to chaos in the country and ultimately all our goals of achieving economic benefit and moral upliftment may not be achieved. Ideology cannot be sidelined.

(The author is Chairman, National Commission for Minorities.)

India’s basic ideology has survived test of time

India’s basic ideology has survived test of time
By Feroze Varun Gandhi

If your ideological perspective is an Indian one, and you view India from India’s cultural perspective, then you would conclude that India has always been a nation, it was never born and it shall never die. It is an eternal, anaadi, and sanatan rashtra.

Ideology is like a potter’s hand that bestows structure to amorphous clay. It is the skilled sculptor’s chisel that converts a block of hard stone into a beautiful shape. Perhaps the shape was already present, hidden by the unwanted debris covering it. Nonetheless, it was the sculptor who chiseled away the unwanted edges. Similarly, ideology chisels away at the various events influencing a society and brings about an interpretation that is in tune with its world perspective. Ideology becomes the fundamental margdarshak that helps define the way we look at the world.

Take for example, the intriguing task of understanding India. If your ideology is Macaulian with its standpoint 19th century Europe, when Garibaldi was uniting Italy, the Prussians were in the process of forming a nation, or the Balkans being amalgamated then you would view India from that perspective. You would infer that India too, as a nation, took birth in 1947 and is “a nation in the making.”

However, if your ideological perceptive is Left-oriented, then your standpoint would be the early 20th century Russia, the coagulation of the different republics into the USSR. India, therefore, would appear to you as a similar collection of different small kingdoms, and princely states—a dominion of different republics forming a new one. But, if your ideological perspective is an Indian one, and you view India from India’s cultural perspective, then you would conclude that India has always been a nation, it was never born and it shall never die. It is an eternal, anaadi, and sanatan rashtra. Present day India’s various political outfits have spawned primarily from these three basic ideological perspectives.

A philanthropist can make a difference in a village or a district or even a city, by building educational institutions, or hospitals. A sadhu can perhaps have a larger influence through his teachings, but only the presence of a strong political party sustained by its ideological marrow can sculpt a nation’s future generations, and define the way it views the world, and impacts it. We see the results in our neighbourhood. The extremist Wahabi ideology of the Saudis has resulted in a generation with hardline views that has given rise to global terrorism, whereas Indian Islam influenced by Indian culture has evolved into a relatively accommodative version like the Sufi sect.

Similarly, under the Shah, Iran progressed, whereas under the ideology promoted by the Ayatollahs, Iran finds itself increasingly isolated in the world community.

It is the young who are morally strong, and are developing a vision for the future based on India’s eternal ideology. This question is not difficult to be answered, but it is important to answer it now. A new generation of ideologically correct young Indians has already entered the arena.

On the one hand, India is democratic and is progressing economically, whereas on the other hand Pakistan bred and fed solely on its anti-Indian ideology has become a global menace, not only being the world’s largest producer of jehadis, but also the world’s nemesis when its comes to the nuclear black market.

Pakistan, inspite of being extremely poor and backward, spends nearly six per cent of its Gross Domestic Product(GDP) on Defence, depriving millions of poor Pakistanis of the money that otherwise could have been used for their upliftment. There is no justification for this spending. There is no threat of invasion from India. It is the cost that Pakistan pays only to keep alive its anti-India agenda and enrich its huge cartel of Generals. The Pakistani Army it seems has the highest number of Generals in the world.

This stark difference between the polity of the two countries i.e, India and Pakistan is due to their vastly different ideologies. A similar comparison between the Judaic, Islamic and Christian countries yields an interesting facet. Both Israel and the Islamic world have derived their ideology from the Old Testament of the Semitic religions that espouse “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” It is a theory of retribution and vengeance. Hence, we see that Israel will retaliate for every attack on it, and so is the case of the Islamic countries.

However, the Christian countries in a way derive their basic ideology from the New Testament that preaches, “If an eye for an eye were the rule of the world, then soon the world would become toothless and blind. Hence show the other cheek.”

We thus see that even though America suffered the brutal 9/11 terrorist attacks, yet Americans were divided on the steps taken by President Bush to wipe out the terrorists bases in Afghanistan and its subsequent invasion of Iraq. If the 9/11 like attacks had taken place on Israel or an Islamic country, public opinion would have been in favour of retribution.

Leaders have a great influencing power on the masses. They are the torch-bearers of any ideology. If Michael Jackson—an American pop-star—wears half-torn jeans, then tearing of jeans before wearing them becomes an oxymoronic fashion statement. Society is thus what its leaders are. It is due to the leaders of various aspects of Indian life that our ideology has survived.

I feel as far as India’s strategic interests are concerned, India must adopt Old Testament, rather than continue to show the other cheek!

Just as nature gets sub-atomic particles arrayed through magnetic and electrical fields, human society is arrayed into the various ideological settings by its leaders. Ideology can thus be defined as the arraying mechanism that gives direction and purpose to human society, providing an insight into its future.

The Incas, the Egyptians, and other great empires of the past rose and fell. Great religions too formed and subsequently lost into oblivion. They all had their own ideologies with their own world views, whether it was for world conquest or world conversion. But they disappeared with the passage of time. Time is the ultimate test for any ideology. Is the ideology going to survive, or disappear in its first battle? India’s socio-religio-economic ideology has always been of accommodation, of living in tune with nature, not exploitation but mutual cohabitation, and symbiosis. This basic tenet has come to define India’s perspective towards non-interference, non-alignment, non-violence and neutrality. How come India’s basic ideology has survived for thousands of year, when others have disappeared?

Standing amidst the two great armies on the Kurukshetra battlefield, Sri Krishna says to Arjun, “Yad yad acharati shreshtah, tat tad evetaro janah, sa yat pramaanam kurute, lokas tad anuvartate” (Whatever action a great man performs, common men follow. And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues.) Leaders have a great influencing power on the masses. They are the torch-bearers of any ideology. If Michael Jackson—an American pop-star, wears half-torn jeans, then tearing of jeans before wearing them becomes an oxymoronic fashion statement. Society is thus what its leaders are. It is due to the leaders of various aspects of Indian life that our ideology has survived.

Thus, it is imperative now more than ever that the leaders of modern India be focussed towards this common ideology that has come to define India since thousands of years, and chart the future path for this great nation. We must question, what do we want India to be like in the next 20 or 50 years? What sort of young people do we want leading India’s march into the future? It is the young who are morally strong, and are developing a vision for the future based on India’s eternal ideology. This question is not difficult to be answered, but it is important to answer it now. A new generation of ideologically correct young Indians has already entered the arena, and is ready to be tested.

Circumstances modulate ideology and fashion polity

Circumstances modulate ideology and fashion polity
By Vasundhara Raje

Ideology understandably has to be dynamic. Yet, it cannot be amorphous and fluid but has to have a skeleton of core values that would be the guiding principles. It is this skeleton of our ideology that makes the Hindutva movement uniquely suited to take this nation to the future.

Ideology is a term that came into vogue at the end of the 18th century. Destutt de Tracy’s Elemens d’ldeologie of 1801-15 and the writing by Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels of The German Ideology in 1845-6 (to its publication in 1922) and Das Kapital, introduced the modern political thinker to the term. The various forms of governments in the modern world have been powered by some form of ideology.

This doctrine of common ownership and democratic control of the means of production as a panacea has been proven wrong as the facts of social and political life do not necessarily agree with socialist (or for that communist) theory. The former Soviet Union is no longer in existence and China too is far removed from Communism with entrepreneurship and market economy driving it to prosperity.

At the dawn of Independence, the nation was styled to be a sovereign, socialist, secular democratic republic with development as its ideology. This Nehruvian vision remained unfulfilled and over the passage of time, has mutated far beyond what perhaps was envisaged by the founding fathers. Three events have irrevocably transformed India— the rise of the ‘backward classes’, the alternative definition of secularism and economic liberalisation. India’s feudal polity has seen changes which have led to disruptions in established pecking orders. Regional aspirations have seen the emergence of regional political parties who command attention even in the national canvas. The strikingly strange part of the landscape is that the same party, which while in the Centre takes a certain line on issues affecting the country, adopts a different line on the same issue, when in the State. Thus, it is clear that circumstances modulate ideology which in turn, affects polity.

Ideology understandably has to be dynamic. Yet, it cannot be amorphous and fluid but has to have a skeleton of core values that would be the guiding principles. It is this skeleton of our ideology that makes the Hindutva movement uniquely suited to take this nation to the future. When we look at our neighbouring countries, we have two Islamic republics, a Hindu Kingdom and Sri Lanka—who irrespective of events, have preserved the ‘Sinhala’ identity. Why is it that the ‘liberal’ world points fingers if the majority of this country unapologetically want to preserve the age old traditions of ‘Bharat’?

We, who believe in the ideal of Hindutva, are proud of cultural nationalism as the binding force. Cultural nationalism is tempered by a unique mix of Kabir and Meera, Khusrau and Ghalib, of Holi and Eid and Christmas. To perceive the grievances and aspirations of the majority of the country as ‘anti- minority’ is incorrect. We are not anti- minority. We are indeed anti ‘minority appeasement’. The Constitution of this country, to which we all swear allegiance, never indicated that the Aligarh Muslim University should be a minority institution. The Allahabad High Court in all its sagacity struck this status down recently.

World over, never a question is raised about the authenticity of the claims regarding the Church of Nativity or the Wailing Wall. This is because, in matters of faith, verifiable, empirical or historical authenticity get to play a secondary role. Why then is the birthplace of Lord Rama questioned for its authenticity? The place Hindus have given to Mathura, Kashi and Ayodhya are matters of faith and should be respected by all.

Cutting across political affiliations, we all agree that Kashmir is as much India as is Kanyakumari. We all agree on the irrevocability of the Instrument of Accession. In the interest of good relations, we agree to negotiate with our neighbour on how to peacefully get back what is ours. What is so wrong in the laws that govern the rest of the country that they do not apply in entirety to Kashmir?

In today’s India, men and women generate a host of goods and services with equal productivity. When the women of this country look for gender justice and equality, and ask for a common civil code, the demon of religious exclusivity is invoked. Not having a common civil code expressly violates the letter and spirit of Article 44 of the Constitution of India. Article 44 is a part of Directive Principles of State Policy and was incorporated by the founding fathers, because they felt that the principle underlying was the same as that for the freedom struggle. John Rawls wrote in his celebrated work A Theory of Justice “Laws and Institutions on matter, however, efficient and well arranged must be reformed, or, abolished if they are unjust.”

It is a matter of faith that the cow is important to a community. It is a matter of science, that the utility of the cow as a draught and as a milch animal is unsurpassed. It is a matter of prudence that animal husbandry should be promoted, especially in a country where most of agriculture is rainfed. It is a matter of respect to Article 48 of the Constitution that cow slaughter should be banned.

To govern a large and populous country where aspirations and requirements of various socio-economic strata have to be taken into account, the greatest good of the greatest number would have to take precedence over selective beneficiation. It is natural that various congregations - ethno-linguistic, educational, religious and political would have different ideologies. Understanding them and looking for ways to assimilate them in the broader fabric of society and polity is what governance is all about. However, it is important that ideology evolves with times, along with the dynamics of popular aspirations and a myriad of controlling factors that define the course of economy.

(The author is the Chief Minister of Rajasthan.)

An economic strategy that serves Hindustan

An economic strategy that serves Hindustan
By Subramanian Swamy

What the Hindus need today is a virile mindset, by which I mean a conscious mental commitment to an agenda of action for safeguarding and consolidating the Hindu foundation of the nation. It is not enough, therefore, for a Hindu to be pious, go on pilgrimages, and celebrate all religious festivals. Today, much more the Hindu needs a mindset that is tuned and committed to making the people culturally united, the nation becoming economically developed, to ensure that it is respected internationally as a global power, and to defend the integrity of Hinduism from overt and covert conversion.

For this, the Hindu needs an Agenda that can serve as his behavioural compass. Such an Agenda the Hindu however lacks today, and hence the Hindu is confused on how to respond to the events that happen every day within and outside the country. Recently, the VHP in it’s Dharma Sansad drew up a set of essential commitments for every Hindu. These are in one dimension of Hindu unity, and is commendable.

The purpose of my columns in this weekly is to search for agenda items in other dimensions so that every Indian citizen can claim to be a proud legatee of Hindustan in totality. Such an agenda should be acceptable to those Christians and Muslims who acknowledge that their ancestors are Hindus and feel proud of that lineage. Hindus will enthusiastically stand up for such religious minorities.

Hindus, such Muslims and Christians, and those other religious minorities such as Parsis and Jews who came to India as refugees, together do constitute the Hindustan rashtra. Those who refuse or do not fall into this categorization of Hindustanis may be Indian citizens, but sooner or later we will need a law to bar such citizens from contesting elections at all levels from Panchayat to Parliament.

One can have a strong economy and yet a weak people. Sooner or later, such economies end up in a terrible crisis. Indonesian economy is an example of this.

It is in this setting that I explore in this column here the dimension of economic policy and strategy that is appropriate for a strong Hindustan, and that which enables and qualifies the nation for global power status. In later columns I will deal with other dimensions of the Hindu Agenda for a virat Hindustan rashtra.

I am not arguing here that there is a separate Hindu economics that is different from Muslim or Christian economics. The laws of economics, on the contrary, are universal e.g., the law of demand and supply equilibrium, the effect of a rise of interest rates on investment, the impact of a devaluation of the rupee-dollar exchange rate, etc.. Instead what I propose here is the need for an economic strategy that utilises these universal laws to foster a strong Hindustan. One can have a strong economy and yet a weak people. Sooner or later, such economies end up in a terrible crisis. Indonesian economy is an example of this. Even the Narasimha Rao reforms made the Indian economy strong, but small industry and agriculture suffered. Unemployment was not reduced; in some sectors it had increased. The reduction in interest rates due to de-regulation helped capitalists to earn higher profits but hurt the middle classes and pensioners who had depended on the interest income on their fixed deposits. Hence, the people at large became weaker. To my knowledge, Rao had planned to correct for this, but Congress Party’s internal sabotage that was led secretly by Ms. Sonia Gandhi, and his party’s defeat in 1996 general elections, robbed him of the chance to do so. Successive governments also did not address this problem, on how to develop the economy while enabling the people to become stronger.

India as global economic power in 15 years

An economic strategy for solving this problem will have to be focused on income augmentation through employment generation, for skilled and non-skilled, urban and rural workers. The present UPA government plans rural employment through doles and handouts arising from government public works project. This will mean only short-term employment, corruption, dependence of the people on government, and a bigger budgetary deficit. It will increase employment on paper only for propaganda purposes and not in reality.

The economic strategy that will achieve the goal of strong economy and self-reliant people has instead to be agricultural modernization, encouraging outsourcing of manufacturing to low overhead ancilliary but small industry, women empowerment through household e-commerce, a comprehensive safety net, building a national river water grid by interlinking, providing drinking water from solar energy based desalination of sea water in coastal towns, and massive rural infrastructure development including IT connectivity. It may be noticed that each of these will generate permanent assets and long-term employment of labour. Just as software IT development in the 1990s has made many Indians rich without government patronage, the same way the above strategy will make our people self-reliant by providing employment and empowerment.

No wonder multinationals like Pepsi want to export tomatoes and milk from India. It is highly profitable! That we did not design an economic strategy to suit our nation’s endowments is because of the Nehruvian Soviet legacy.

Agricultural modernisation means empowering the farmer to process his output, i.e., cereals, vegetables, fruits, flowers, and dairy products, to package it, and to sell it in far-away markets including those abroad. This would require cold storages, IT connectivity for market intelligence, easy bank credit, and small airfields for freight lifting. Indian agricultural output is produced at the world’s lowest cost. Rice price is just one seventh Japan’s. Vegetable prices are a quarter of world average, and milk price is one-fifteenth wwestern Europe’s. Indian agricultural exports is not at all subsidized, in fact it receives negative subsidy according to WTO calculations. By the measurement of aggregate support[MAS] of the WTO, India is entitled today to subsidize agricultural exports up to Rs.50,000 crores! India not only does not, but since 1993, domestic public investment in agriculture as a ratio of GDP has been declining. This gross neglect of agriculture is criminal considering that the sector employs 65% of the working population.

To wipe out rural poverty, there is no better way than to enable the farmer to export his products abroad. The several multiples in price he would get will go into private investment and increase the productivity of agriculture. No wonder multinationals like Pepsi want to export tomatoes and milk from India. It is highly profitable! That we did not design an economic strategy to suit our nation’s endowments is because of the Nehruvian Soviet legacy. We have still not exorcised the dead Soviet strategy from our economic policy-making. Only a Hindu renaissance can.

Agricultural modernisation means empowering the farmer to process his output, i.e., cereals, vegetables, fruits, flowers, and dairy products, to package it, and to sell it in far-away markets including those abroad.

If we do, then we can become a global economic power within 15 years. But India will concurrently need a national security strategy to defend it’s growing economic propects.

There is no conflict between ideology and governance

Ideology rooted in Indianness has nothing to fear
There is no conflict between ideology and governance
By Arif Mohammed Khan

In public life ideology means not only science of ideas or visionary speculation but certain beliefs, convictions, morals and objectives that inspire and prompt an individual to devote his or her life and resources to translate that speculative vision into reality. This has been so since the inception of civilisation and ideology shall continue to play that role.

I do not subscribe to the view that in the era of globalisation there is no role left for the ideology. To my mind, globalisation, itself, is nothing but the realisation of the age-old Indian ideological dream, that is; Vasudaiva Kutumbkam. In fact, polity sans ideology is something unthinkable. Human beings are not made that way. A nation cannot live by GDP alone. Ideology provides basis, foundation and purpose to human activity. A sense of values that enables one to find happiness within and face odds without, with ease comes from being rooted in ideology.

Since the success of any political party or politician in short term is measured by the outcome of electoral battles, they remain pre-occupied with devising strategies to win these contests. Now this strategy naturally takes into consideration the ground realities and propositions rooted in ideology are formulated to address the popular concerns and spell out the future plans for development and progress in the form of party manifesto. If the party succeeds in winning the popular endorsement, it is fine otherwise the need arises for cobbling a post-election arrangement to carry the work of governance. It is in such situations that the parties are called upon to make ideological compromises and concessions and go for common minimum programmes.

A political party particularly one rooted in a well defined ideology divides people in two categories i.e. supporters and potential supporters. In the event of the formation of a coalition a party may agree not to insist on immediate implementation of some of its programmes but it does not mean the party has jettisoned its ideological stand.

At this stage it is important to keep in mind that in a democracy the struggle to win hearts and minds of people including even those who are bitter opponents never ceases. A political party, particularly one, rooted in a well defined ideology divides people in two categories, i.e., supporters and potential supporters. In the event of the formation of a coalition a party may agree not to insist on immediate implementation of some of its programmes but it does not mean the party has jettisoned its ideological stand. This applies equally to individual members. I remember the day when Muslim Women Bill meant to render the Supreme Court judgment in Shah Bano case ineffective was taken up for voting in the Lok Sabha, I stood up and said that while I shall abide by the whip and vote for the measure, I reserve my right to continue to carry on the campaign to mobilize public opinion against this patently divisive measure.

Basically it must be understood that when we talk of ideology we are giving expression to our political belief, our vision and to put it more succinctly our ambition to achieve certain well specified goals. Now among the electorate there are people who sympathise with our ideology and others who take the opposite view. The most crucial test of a political party is to win enough support to be in a position to put its vision into action and till such time use all the energy and resources to canvass its ideological propositions to mobilize and win public support. If in short term the success of a political party is measured in terms of electoral outcome, in long term the success will be determined by making party ideology peoples' ideology. In short, the real job will be done by bridging the gap between ambition and reality.

I do not see any clash between the challenges of governance and development and the call of ideology. The former places responsibility on the political parties to rise to the occasion in the event of one party failing to secure majority required to form the government and work out an arrangement to prevent the collapse of the constitutional machinery, and the latter prompts and inspires the party to work ceaselessly to organise and mobilize peoples' support to achieve its ideological goals if not today then in as near a future as possible.

The success of any political party or politician in short term is measured by the outcome of electoral battles, they remain pre-occupied with devising strategies to win these contests. Now this strategy naturally takes into consideration the ground realities and propositions rooted in ideology are formulated to address the popular concerns and spell out the future plans for development and progress in the form of party manifesto.

It is true that on the issues of governance and development the area of differences between various political parties has been greatly reduced. This process in fact started with the collapse of communism all over the world. One may recall the famous remark of Mr. Neil Kinnock on the eve of the last election that Labour Party fought under his leadership. After the release of manifesto when the journalists pointed out that there is hardly any difference between the manifestoes of the two major parties, Kinnock said “yes I know, I am aware of that, but we shall govern better.”

But the collapse of the ideology of communism should not give rise to the feeling that the role for ideology as such has come to a naught. Any ideology or creed that becomes static and fails to respond to challenges and requirements of the times meets this fate.

A nation cannot live by GDP alone. Ideology provides basis, foundation and purpose to human activity.

Ideology in the Indian context is altogether a different class. The idea of India does not go with being static or unresponsive. Sir Brajendranath Seal, a former Vice Chancellor of Mysore University, had coined a very appropriate term to describe India as 'ever ageing but never old'. That is also the meaning of Sanskrit word purana which usually means ancient and old. Shankaracharya in his commentary of Gita describes Atman, the infinite self of man as Purana. He says “Pura api, Nava Eveti, Puranah” though ancient, it is always fresh, always new. Like the atman, India also is purana in that sense, ever ageing but never old. The collapse of communist ideology may well be a warning sound for other static ideologies. But an ideology rooted in Indianness need have no such fear. Like India the ideology rooted in Indianness though ancient remains always fresh and always new. If this characteristic of India and Indianness that found expression in the famous couplet of Allama Iqbal:

Kuchh bat hai ki hasti mit ti nahin hamari

Sadion raha hai dushman daure zaman hamara

Sare jahan se achha Hindustan hamara

(The author is a former Union Minister.)

Nationalism is our basic inspiration

Nationalism is our basic inspiration
By Arun Jaitley

The role of ideology in polity is paramount. Ideology is a representation of one’s conviction. It’s a representation of your broad prospective on the nation. Ideology determines priorities with regard to the direction in which the country is to be taken. There may be many routine matters in public life and in governance which are guided on the basis of principles of good governance. Some of them may not link to ideology.

For any political party there are three distinct areas of priority, the first is ideology, second values and the third relates to governance. As far as ideology is concerned it governs your priorities. For example we in the BJP are governed by a basic inspiration which is drawn from nationalism. The word nationalism could be even substituted with Hindutva. It could also be substituted for cultural nationalism. But if you see the common thread between the three, it is a ‘India First Ideology’ that we stand for, whatever that suits my country.

Now, if in areas of ideology we chalk out our preference, the first priority would be the security of the country. My country and its territories are precious to me. Therefore anything that denudes alters or reduces the territorial sovereignty of my country is totally unacceptable. If there is a refugee influx from Bangladesh which leads to subversive activities, if there is an ISI infiltration into the country which creates an element of subversion, if one third of Kashmir is in possession of Pakistan, if there is any further threat to any territory of India, my nationalist priorities don’t approve of it.

A weak nation, a diverse nation, a nation with divergent priorities will never be able to hold together and therefore in those areas ideology plays a prominent role.

Secondly, to preserve the pride of this country and to preserve the sovereignty of the country what is it that holds my country together? It is not merely love for a fellow citizen but has some larger relationship, a larger binding force which emanates from the culture of my country. That is where the ideology of Hindutva and cultural nationalism gain utmost priority.

There are symbols of my national pride. There are symbols of my country’s personality, which are represented in mythology, which are represented in history, which are represented in our cultural religious and even nationalistic priorities. Preservation of the identity of each one of these is important. Our nationalistic priorities, our cultural roots give a complete freedom of religion and allow an equal coexistence for all religions. At the same time denigration in any form, of our cultural roots is derogatory to the coexistence of all religions. So when Ayodhya is denigrated and not given its pride of place in Indian life, how is it consistent with the ethos of—Sarvadharmasamabhav and a peaceful coexistence of all religions? When separate sub nationalism in terms of Article 370 is perceived of in Kashmir how is the sub nationalism consistent with the national identity? How in the absence of a Uniform Civil Code, separate Laws which are discriminatory in character consistent with the nationalistic priorities?

In routine governance it is idealism which has to dictate your priorities and idealism requires the values of good governance.

Therefore, it is always in the country’s interest that ideology in these issues of nationhood takes a priority. A weak nation, a diverse nation, a nation with divergent priorities will never be able to hold together and therefore in those areas ideology plays a prominent role.

Secondly, the economic nationalism has to be the guiding milestone in management of the country’s ideology. Economic nationalism entails that we have to pursue that path of economy for development which suits the interest of my nation. Today I believe for instance, economic nationalism requires that in dealing with the WTO we have to give priorities to those areas from which my country and its economy benefits. Where I benefit I can afford to be liberal, where my country does not benefit, I have to be conservative. The guiding force is again economic nationalism. In terms of management of the domestic economy, again ideology is the governing force, because the path to rapid development, equitable development is the route, I have to pursue. My growth rates have to be higher. The benefits of the economic development have to percolate to the weaker sections. It is that path which I have to follow very clearly.

Anything that denudes, alters or reduces the territorial sovereignty of my country is totally unacceptable.

Education is another area where ideology has to take a front seat. In education some people have traditionally tried indoctrination against our cultural roots. This can not be permitted. These are several areas of political functioning where ideology always takes a front seat.

The second category that I mentioned are values that we practice and profess. Here ethics and morality must govern us and these must be the same irrespective of which ideological prospective you are governed by. Individual honesty, organisational discipline and good values are role models. These are our priorities today.

The third is routine areas of governance. There are several areas of governance particularly in relation to finance, commerce, home ministry and external affairs where ideology plays a role. In rural development, economic ideology plays a role. In routine governance it is idealism which has to dictate your priorities and idealism requires that the values of good governance, proper decisions are the ones which must guide your discipline.

We in the BJP are governed by a basic inspiration which is drawn from nationalism.

When we discuss ideology, a large part moves around the true content and definition of secularism. I don’t wish to avoid that debate. That debate is essential. But I think in the last fifteen years the real agenda of the debate has come to the centre-stage and the real agenda is the true content of secularism. We in the BJP have a strong line against terrorism. We promulgated an anti-terrorist law. Our opponents consider it as anti-secular. How can it be anti-secular? It is against terrorists irrespective of religious denominations. We want one common law for the whole country. How can this be anti-secular? We want a pride of place for symbols of our cultural and religious nationalism such as Ayodhya. That is consistent with peaceful coexistence with all religions. I think there is a difference between minoritism and secularism. There is a difference between secularism and majority bashing. And this debate has come to the centre-stage in the last fifteen years. And I think our view point has become loud and clear and hugely accepted in the whole country.

(The author is general secretary of the BJP.)

Ideology is the equity of a party

Ideology is the equity of a party
Polity is an aggregate of actions of political parties
By Pramod Mahajan

No leader is God; everybody has a feet of clay. No power is permanent; many times it vanishes even before you feel it. Those political parties which revolve around one personality or a family—and there is no dearth of such political parties in our country—or those political parties for whom power is not a means to serve the people but a selfish instrument of self-service vanish in thin air

A political party is a group of people, who live together, who think together and act together. And finally, ideology is a distinctive thinking of a critical class of people, who deliberate and conceive answers to social, economic and political directions a nation should pursue in order to be prosperous, i.e. in our terminology, ‘Param Vaibhav’.

In short, polity, political parties and ideologies are inseparable. Conceiving a political party without ideology is like imagining a tree without roots! Every member of a political party may not be in a position to explain all the nuances of his or her party’s ideology. Every voter who votes for a particular party may not always vote because of its ideology. And every decision required to be taken when a party acquires power, may not always be the touchstone of its ideology. But that by no means lessens or diminishes the role of ideology in polity, that may to some extent illustrate its limitations.

What is the reason for a person to join and continue to work in a particular political party? Infatuation of a leader for a party as lure of political power is no answer. No leader is God; everybody has a feet of clay. No power is permanent; many times it vanishes even before you feel it. Those political parties which revolve around one personality or a family—and there is no dearth of such political parties in our country—or those political parties for whom power is not a means to serve the people but a selfish instrument of self-service vanish in thin air or lose their importance and relevance in polity. Only those political parties put their prints on the sands of time whose majority of members are inspired by ideologies of their political parties. They neither go into sunset with their tall leader nor are they bothered by the going in or coming out of the power, because their inspiration for being and working in a party neither comes from a tall leader nor from power but from the ideology which they profess.

It is true that in a country like India, where we have 600 million voters belonging to different religions, castes, languages, social and economic backgrounds, educational standards, every voter does not vote after examining the ideologies of different political parties. Nobody even expects that. Voting behaviour of an average voter is presumed to be complex all over the world. A Nobel Prize is waiting for the person who will be able to analyse this complex behaviour clearly.

But a political party must always remember that its basic vote comes from those who believe in the ideology of the party. Any major deviation from the ideology puts off its major support bank. These voters being loyal may not vote for others but they do not vote for you either. It is true that ideology-free undecided voters decide the fate of election. But it is only a half-truth. Your ideology-based voter support must be intact. Only fools care about ‘interest’ forgetting the basic ‘deposit’, which is the root cause of interest. So even from pure electro-arithmetic point of view, ideology plays an important role in polity.

Let us now examine the last but not the least important point, does ideology have a role in polity while running the government or not? Does ideology lose its relevance the moment a political party acquires power?

There is no denying the fact that when you rule, you rule over those who believe in your ideology and over those who don’t know your ideology and even over those who oppose your ideology. It is a very-very complex situation. You have to take ‘n’ number of decisions, which you never anticipated. You will come across innumerable complex situations, for which your ideology may not have clear-cut solutions.

Does this mean that ideology loses its relevance during governance? The answer is a clear no. It is the duty of the political party to serve the people who believe or don’t believe or oppose their ideology, with the cardinal principle ‘justice to all and appeasement of none’. It is to be understood that good intentions and empathy are not good enough for sustainable political, social and economic development. A clear-cut political ideology is needed.

To conclude, ideology is like the banks of river. As long as a political party flows within its banks, it is a boon to the nation and the moment it crosses its banks, it becomes a curse to the society.

The people of India have always loved Bharatiya Janata Party for its strong ideological convictions. Though even today they consider BJP the best among the lot, the chariot of BJP’s Dharmaraj has touched the ground. But people have not lost hope in the party. BJP should not lose faith in itself. India needs a party with ideology. Indian polity has such a vacuum. BJP should try its level best to come out of the present eclipse and fill this vacuum. It is not just that BJP can, it should!

(The author is general secretary of the BJP.)

Commitment to the nation is ideology

Commitment to the nation is ideology
By Dr Najma Heptullah

In a democratic society it is the responsibility of the political party or people to govern the country. And governance has to be good governance. What is the definition of good governance? People of the country should live happily, like we talk about Ram Rajya. We talk about Ram Rajya, because Lord Ram killed the evil and it was a victory over evil.

In today’s terms, if you see, what are the evils of a country? They are backwardness, illiteracy and poverty. Any good governance has to tackle these basic issues. Once you tackled these issues, the nation overcomes poverty. So how does one fulfill these basic necessities of a nation? It would be done if you have certain commitments. If your commitments are ideology, then fine. Ideology to me is that I should be honest to my country, I should be loyal to my country, I should see if there is any external danger to my country, I should be able to fight it. If there is any internal problem, I should be able to tackle it. If there are any evils in the society, I should be able to fight it, so that my country should develop, it should progress and should have people who are satisfied with the governance. This is my perception of ideology—that commitment to the country. This is what should be called an ideology that is necessary for a nation.

You should be committed to your country and to your ideals. In certain cases ideologies perhaps come from ideals. In certain times we take individuals as our ideals, if we learn from them. Or we should have our own ideals. I as an individual judge every action of mine on my own commitments and balance. If, say in Urdu, I put it on a balance on my Iman. Iman is a commitment to something. For example I can give an example of the previous NDA Government led by Atal Behari Vajpayee. What were its programmes? The programmes were to build the roads, as the roads go to every village, every house. There would be no restriction on caste, religion, money and status for the people to walk on the road. Somebody can walk on it, somebody can go by a bi-cycle and if some can afford a car, he can use the road. That is why I strongly feel that it is part of an ideology, and likewise we should have a strong communication system which is good for everybody. And this comes from development.

Ideology to me is that I should be honest to my country. I should be loyal to my country. I should see if there is any external danger to my country. I should be able to fight it. If there is any internal problem, I should be able to tackle it.

When there is sun shine, the heat and the light goes to everybody. So like the nature is just the road, programmes of the NDA Government was just. I feel it was the most secular programme, because the road benefits everybody without any discrimination.

The other thing that I would say is water. Water is the need of everybody. Then the programme for connecting the rivers came. This programme suits everybody. Every piece of land would be irrigated with that water. So it was also the most secular programme. In fact it would be much more beneficial than today. Today the rivers are divided by various states, and only those states are benefiting while other states are reeling under water shortage. So the nationalist attitude and the nationalist commitment and the nationalist ideology, I saw there in NDA rule. Take for example, electricity. If electricity is generated it will lighten up not merely the cities but also a hut in a remote village. So that is also a secular programme which is beneficial to everyone. What I mean by secularism is it should not be sectarian. It should not have any disparity. It should benefit without any prejudice everyone. There should be no biases. I fail to understand how people explain the word secular ideology and communal ideology. In our country unfortunately, when we talk of communal divide we only think in terms of religion.

Perhaps this is the result of 1947, because the country was divided on the basis of religion. I am inspired by the thoughts of Maulana Azad. He was a very religious person but he was opposed to the division of the country on the basis of religion. He said that religion is not the only reason for uniting or dividing people. He was proved right in the later years. Because Bangladesh, East Pakistan and West Pakistan were divided though initially they were carved out of India on the basis of religion. But they could not remain together for more than 25 years. So where was the religious binding? It was a different kind of binding of regions and languages. Both Bengali Hindus and Muslims speak the same language, while the Punjabi or Sindhi or Beluchi have nothing common with the Bengali except religion. It could not keep them together.

Nationalism and nationality are above everything for uniting people. I feel nationalism is the basis of a person’s ideology. My commitment is my nationality and that is India. When I look at the Integral Humanism, it said we are human beings; we are born in a country. We have certain commitments towards our country.

Then we see later examples, whether we take the case of Lebanon, their people were divided on the basis of very, very small loyalties. Similarly in the past Iraq and Iran fought marathon battles among themselves. They both are Muslims, they should not have fought. If the theory of dividing India was correct, that you cannot live with Hindus, you can only live with Muslims then the Banladesh, Iraq and Iran fights should not have happened. Then a much more glaring example was that of Kuwait and Iraq war. Not only were they both Muslims but they were also Arabic, speaking the same language, having the same culture. But they could not live together.

The nationalism and nationality are above everything for uniting people. I feel nationalism is the basis of a person’s ideology. My commitment is my nationality and that is India. The philosophy of Integral Humanism says we are human beings; we are born in this country. We have certain commitments towards our country. We have born in a world first and then in a country, state, city and province later on. The basic thing is that we are part of this whole Brahmand, the whole universe. That’s why our ancient wisdom says: Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam. The whole world is a big family, and we are a big family. So we have certain responsibilities to this whole world. Then it comes to what country we are born in.

I fail to understand how people explain the word secular ideology and communal ideology. In our country unfortunately, when we talk of communal divide we only think in terms of religion.

When we look at the environment there are no barriers for pollution. If a country explores nuclear bomb, it cannot be stopped on the physical or political boundaries of the country, it will come to us and somebody else also. So we have to protect that and this is the responsibility of all of us. If there is water shortage, everybody is going to suffer. So how to conserve the natural resources. The basis of any political party’s ideology should have certain basic commitment to their country and to the countrymen.

When we come to the issues of governance, today we see most of the political parties, while deciding candidates they decide in the election process, analyse what is the combination of the population, how many Hindus are there, how many Christians and Muslims are there. Why they do that? To find a candidate accordingly. The party does not see if the candidate is committed or not. The only point with the political parties is how would they win the elections? That’s why everybody becomes communal, because we are talking about different communities, not about the nation, about the efficiency or the ability of a person. At the smallest level each one becomes communal and that is the bane of our democratic system. These are the pitfalls of the democracy. I have seen different democracies of the world and they work better than monarchies and dictatorships. Any ideal political party should not think about the caste, creed or religion instead should stress on the commitments towards the nation or efficiency of governance. But unfortunately it is not happening any where, especially in our country.