Ram ki Nagri, once again

But Ayodhya judgement at best a partial closure

During a recent television debate on ‘Saffron Terror’ (the coinage is an oxymoron, but such details don’t bother the ‘secular’ intelligentsia of this wondrous land of ours) I found myself seated next to Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen president and MP from Hyderabad Asaduddin Owaisi. Within minutes I was convinced that Mr Owaisi, dressed in an achkan and his heart bleeding profusely for suspected terrorists, lacked both manners and grace. He would interrupt everybody, insisting he had the right to have his say -- without, of course, conceding that right to others. Half way through the show, he suddenly turned towards me and smugly asked, “Will you accept the court’s verdict on Babri Masjid?” I refused to answer him, and for good reason. Later, after the show was over, I asked him, “Will you accept the verdict?” His answer was spontaneous, “Yes, we will.” And then added slyly, “But that’s not the issue. Will you accept it?” I headed for the studio exit.

Mr Owaisi’s question was not as innocuous as it may have seemed to others. For nearly three months a story had been doing the rounds in Delhi, the sum and substance of which was that the much-anticipated judgement in the Ayodhya case would be a two-one majority verdict in favour of the Muslims, upholding the Sunni Waqf Board’s claim to the disputed 2.7 acre land where the Babri Masjid stood till it was demolished by enraged Hindus on December 6, 1992, to reclaim Ram Janmabhoomi and rid India of one of its many monuments glorifying invaders who remorselessly laid the lives of kafirs to waste and destroyed their places of worship with vengeance.

Those who believed this story pointed to tell-tale signs: The pattern of deployment of security forces; the choice of date for the verdict (it was originally scheduled for September 24, a Friday); and the cockiness of Muslim organisations not known for holding the secular judiciary of India in high esteem and their repeated assertion that they would abide by the judgement. Mr Owaisi had obviously heard and believed the story. When I expressed my doubts about its veracity to a fellow columnist, he sneeringly replied, “You are living in denial.” Days before the judgement, questioning the wisdom of those who did not want it to be delayed any further, he tweeted that the “verdict will leave lotuswallahs disappointed”.

South Delhi’s commentariat is adept at the game of Chinese whispers, but it is also divorced from reality, preferring fiction over fact. The verdict of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court -- really three separate judgements with the judges concurring on certain key issues -- bore no resemblance to the inspired ‘leak’. The judges agreed on three important issues: Muslims do not have exclusive claim to the site held sacred by Hindus; the ground where the central dome of the Babri Masjid stood belongs to Ram Lalla as has been argued for centuries by Hindus who believe it is Ram Janmabhoomi; and, a temple existed at the spot that was selected by Mir Baqi to build a mosque to celebrate Babur’s victorious military campaign in the region. On the third point, two of the three judges also agreed that the temple was desecrated and destroyed to build the mosque; one of them held this to be un-Islamic, a point validated by theology.

It’s politically correct to say there are no winners and losers following the Ayodhya verdict. But we all know that’s not true. Why else would Mr Owaisi, whose party was last in the news for opposing ‘Hyderabad Liberation Day’ celebrations on September 17 because “many Muslims (razakars) were killed” when the people rose in revolt in 1948 against the Nizam for refusing to join the Union of India, be incandescent with rage? The same man who, having willed himself into believing the cockamamie story that two of the three judges would rule in favour of the Muslims, told me he would accept the High Court’s verdict, is now indulging in what comes easily to him and his ilk: Intemperate, provocative language. “We are not satisfied with the judgement. The evidence presented by Muslims to the court was strong… It seems that it has not been given due consideration,” he told one newspaper. To another he said, “There is anger building up among the Muslim community over the verdict but, god willing, it may not translate into street violence.” Notice how he is leaving the option of mobs taking to the streets wide open. Mr Owaisi is not alone; he has Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav of “ek parinda bhi paar nahi kar sakta” fame, to keep him company.

At the same show I was interrupted by a leading light of south Delhi’s commentariat when I made bold to suggest that little purpose will be served if we keep on going back to history. “What history? Tell us,” he tauntingly said and, along with Mr Owaisi, broke into raucous laughter. I could have given the example of the vandalism that had occurred in Ayodhya in 1528, and elsewhere in India since then: Varanasi, Mathura, Ajmer, Delhi -- the list is endless. But I chose not to bite Mukul Kesavan’s bait, choosing, instead, to place my faith in the wisdom and fair play of our secular justice system. That faith stands vindicated today. At one level, the Ayodhya judgement liberates Ram Janmabhoomi and serves to address, albeit partially, latent and lingering Hindu disquiet. At another level, it is a deeply personal victory for me and some other writers, all of them close friends and professional associates, who chose not to sway with the wave and told the truth as it was rather than join the crowd of intellectually bankrupt dhimmis who unfortunately hold positions of power and authority in free, secular India. They are the real losers and look more pathetic than ever before.

Let me conclude by quoting Nirad C Chaudhuri, a writer whom I greatly admire for speaking his mind freely and without caring a hoot about how many toes he tread upon: “Muslims do not have the slightest right to complain about the desecration of one mosque in Ayodhya. From 1000 AD every temple from Kathiawar to Bihar, from the Himalayas to the Vindhyas has been sacked and ruined. Not one temple was left standing all over northern India. They escaped destruction only where Muslim power did not gain access to them for reasons such as dense forests. Otherwise, it was a continuous spell of vandalism. No nation with any self-respect will forgive this. What happened in Ayodhya would not have happened had the Muslims acknowledged this historical argument even once.”

Well-meaning people believe the Allahabad High Court’s judgement will help bring the Ayodhya dispute to a closure. But the Ayodhya dispute is a manifestation of the historical faultlines that run deep through our society. Till such time we admit the existence of the faultlines and accept the causative factors, there can be no real closure. Settling a title suit is not quite the same as addressing what Niradbabu described as the “historical argument” of India’s imperfect past which makes our future tense. Sadly, though not unexpectedly, there is little or no reason to believe that we are anywhere near a real closure in the absence of any meaningful and sincere acknowledgement of the “continuous spell of vandalism” as symbolised by the monument to honour Babur which stood in Ram ki Nagri till December 6, 1992, and whose reconstruction is still being sought.

Islam's stockpile of human bombs

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had promised his people and the Muslim ummah the ‘Islamic Bomb’. He didn’t live to see his promise fulfilled by a thieving AQ Khan. But given the reality of mutually assured destruction just in case someone is tempted to push the button, Pakistan has to perforce keep the ‘Islamic Bomb’ in safe custody, a useless totem of power. But there’s a far more easily accessible variant of the ‘Islamic Bomb’ which is used with sickening regularity by those who are thrilled at the sight of human gore and flesh, preferably that of women and children. It is called the ‘Human Bomb’.

Before Islamist suicide-bombers became dime-a-dozen, theorists would agonise over what made a man or a woman voluntarily pull the trigger of an explosives laden belt or jacket, thus blowing himself or herself up along with unsuspecting victims, for instance children in a school bus in Israel. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam had perfected the art of using the ‘human bomb’, despatching young men and women to commit dark deeds of mass murder or targeted killings, as in the case of Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination. But the LTTE’s suicide-bombers were driven by ideology, no matter how twisted and perverse it may have been. The cadre followed the leader’s command, or were executed for defiance.

It could be argued that the Islamist ‘human bomb’ is equally driven by ideology — the ideology of hate which fuels jihad in our times. But that would be a simplistic explanation. Perhaps a more abiding reason could be found in the faith they seek to espouse through their ghastly expression of fealty to Islam. The Quran variously praises the “man who gives his life to earn the pleasure of Allah...”, men who “fight in His cause, and slay and are slain…”; it promises rewards for the martyr, “be he slain or be he victorious”. The Hadith (Bukhari) extols the virtues of the ‘martyr’: “I would love to be martyred in Al1ah’s cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred.” That and the promised pleasures of zannat with doe-eyed virgins.

The Grand Sheikh of Al Azhar, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy, a kindly man of wisdom with whom I had several enlightening conversations during my stay in Egypt, would often point out the fallacy of quoting scripture to justify terror, especially suicide-bombing. “Those were different times, we live in a different world. We must understand the text in its context.” Grand Sheikh Tantawy, despite heading Sunni Islam’s most famous theological centre and the world’s oldest surviving centre of learning, had nothing but contempt for those who sought martyrdom through terror. While preachers of hate like Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who runs the most popular portal on Islam, have glorified suicide-bombers and exhorted followers to tread the path of violence as it leads directly to heaven, Grand Sheikh Tantawy has unhesitatingly described them as “enemies of Islam”.

Much as we would like the voice of Grand Sheikh Tantawy to drown the murderous discourse of lesser imams and self-appointed standard-bearers of Islam, unfortunately he and his tribe are in an awful minority. What prevails over the faithful who are easily persuaded by chapter and verse is the constant chant of the virtues of ‘martyrdom’, of becoming a shahid for the cause of faith: They are brainwashed into believing that the road to heaven is made shorter for those who “slay and are slain”, who are “martyred in Allah's cause”. Many of the suicide-bombers are illiterate or semi-literate, but there are also those who have not allowed their education to come in the way of their belief. Mohammed Atta, who flew a hijacked plane into the World Trade Center, was not educated in a madarsa, nor did Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian ‘underpants bomber’ who almost brought down a trans-Atlantic flight last Christmas, suffer denial and deprivation.

Yet, there is no single pattern or explanation to what drives men and women into committing a horrific act of self-destruction aimed at killing innocent people. Reem Riyashi, a 22-year-old mother of two toddlers, blew herself up at a check-post on Israel’s border with Gaza in January, 2004. It was publicised by Hamas as the ultimate expression of loyalty to Islam and sacrifice for the ummah. In a video tape recorded hours before she became a ‘martyr’ and which was shown on a television channel controlled by Hamas, she was heard saying, “I have always wished to knock at the door of heaven carrying skulls belonging to the sons of Zion.” Later it transpired Reem Riyashi’s husband had discovered that she was having an affair with a senior Hamas office-bearer. The hapless woman was given the choice of death due to infidelity at the hands of her enraged husband or death as a ‘martyr’ by becoming a suicide-bomber. She believed the latter would fetch her redemption in the eyes of god, her family and society; her children would respect her.

How, then, would we explain why an Iraqi mother strapped her unsuspecting little child with remote-controlled explosives and blew her up as she raced to collect chocolates from an American soldier who would visit the neighbourhood every day to play with the children? Or the sheer cruelty of a Taliban commander who trains young boys and girls to become suicide-bombers? The BBC recently ran the story of a 13-year-old girl who escaped from home, terrorised by the prospect of being turned into a ‘human bomb’. She told the BBC how her brother, who is a Taliban commander, trains ‘human bombs’, among them his own sisters. Nor is it easy to explain why Humam Khalid Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, an educated Jordanian who is believed to have been on the CIA’s payroll and was given the task of tracking Ayman al-Zawahiri, apart from being trusted by the Jordanian authorities, blew himself up at Forward Operating Base Chapman in Afghanistan, killing seven CIA agents. His family had no clue about what he was planning to do; they thought he had gone abroad to study medicine.

Explanations are not easy to find for a phenomenon that defies logic. We are now told that MI5 has come across evidence to believe Muslim doctors who trained in British hospitals have returned home and joined jihadi ranks with the task of preparing ‘bosom bombers’ — women who volunteer to have explosives implanted in their breasts that cannot be detected by scanners and X-ray machines at airports. Technology and theory spun around a terrorist’s psychoprofile — there cannot be a psychoprofile to profile all terrorists — can help us only up to a point. Beyond that, it’s a grey area, a no-man’s land where logic is replaced by the illogical urge to die and destroy.

-- Kanchan Gupta.


[This appeared as my Sunday column Coffee Break in The Pioneer on 07/02/10. (C) CMYK Printech Ltd.]

Waffle at BJP National Executive meeting

[Update at the end]

The conventional assessment of the BJP National Executive meeting (June 20-21) is that its primary purpose of providing members with an opportunity to let off post-election steam has been achieved. This will put an end to trading of charges and levelling of allegations. It will be back to business as usual.

It is also being claimed (and I endorse this partially) that those who have been cavilling against the party’s ideology and its core idea, Hindutva, have been silenced. Ideology shall continue to enjoy primacy and Hindutva shall remain the guiding force.

Third, niggling doubts about the leadership issue have been put to rest. The party has asserted the principle of ‘democratic centralism’ and this is the way it shall be. Never mind what the party constitution says about electing leaders from bottom up.

My assessment differs on all these counts and more.

The unabashed finger-pointing that was witnessed marks a departure from the past when sobriety was the norm during National Executive meetings. Little or no purpose has been served by the mutual recrimination that marked the discussions till Sunderlal Patwa intervened with an emotional speech.

Patwa’s intervention may have forced an end to the ugly trading of charges, including between Shahnawaz Hussein and Maneka Gandhi, and diverted attention from the points raised by Arun Shourie, but the internecine war is by no means over. At best it is tactical retreat, not even temporary truce.

It is a pity that two ‘leaders’, whom LK Advani referred to as “two eminent Muslim colleagues of ours”, were allowed to adopt an abrasive tone and level all kinds of charges while others were disallowed to raise issues that are much more fundamental for the party’s well-being.

But I guess it is useful to promote the fiction that the BJP lost the election because of what Varun Gandhi said (or did not say) in Pilibhit. That way, the real reasons shall remain swept under the carpet.

[Sushil Modi in his intervention mentioned that Hindutva upsets the JD(U) and could strain the BJP-JD(U) alliance in Bihar. That’s as unconvincing as Naveen Patnaik’s claim that he parted company with the BJP because of the violence in Kandhamal. If Nitish Kumar is convinced that he can win a majority on his own he will part company with the BJP: Nobody likes to share power. A section of the JD(U) feels that an alliance with the Congress makes better sense because it would fetch political returns at the Centre here and now.]

Here is a fact that should have been the subject of serious discussion but was ignored by the National Executive: Of the sitting MPs in the 14th Lok Sabha who contested this year’s election, only 37 have been re-elected. In 2004, nearly a hundred sitting MPs of the BJP lost the election.

It would be absurd to suggest that barring 37 sitting MPs the remaining lost the 2009 election because of Varun Gandhi’s alleged inflammatory comments or a harsh and narrow interpretation of Hindutva. I don’t think there is any evidence to suggest that Hindutva was even mentioned during their campaign, leave alone giving it a sinister twist.

The reasons why such a large number of sitting MPs lost are four-fold:

. Poor track record of the individuals;
. Poor organisational back-up;
. Poor campaigning at the constituency level; and,
. Poor selection of candidates.

The BJP obviously does not want to discuss these issues as that would result in quite a few red faces at the high table. Patwa has saved them from acute embarrassment.

Second, there is no clarity as yet on either ideology or Hindutva.

Both LK Advani and Rajnath Singh stressed on the inclusiveness of Hindutva and how it militates against bigotry and fanaticism. That’s a nice thought. But what does it stand for?

. LK Advani said “BJP’s understanding of Hindutva is fully in accord with the unanimous judgement given by the 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court on December 11, 1995.”

. Rajnath Singh said “Hindutva … has a sense of respect and a place for everyone and it is a concept of co-existence. It is this cultural consciousness which has made Hindutva so benevolent and flexible.”

. The Political Resolution moved and drafted by Ravi Shankar Prasad said, “Hinduism or Hindutva is not to be understood or construed narrowly confined only to religious practices or expressed in extreme forms. It is indeed related to the culture and ethos of the people of the India, depicting the way of life of the Indian people.”

The Indian people’s “way of life” has nothing to do with politics or political campaigns to secure state power. If Hindutva is only what the Supreme Court thinks it is, then it should not be the political creed of any party, least of all the BJP.

The political resolution bizarrely equates Hinduism with Hindutva. This was best avoided. Hinduism is about faith, which is by definition narrow and exclusive. Hindutva is about political mobilisation, which has to be inclusive and all-embracing.

The party should have said:

Hindutva is rooted in India’s cultural and civilisational ethos, of which faith (Hinduism, Islam or Christianity) is only one inter-changeable component; it is representative of India’s identity as an ancient nation and a modern nation state; it links India’s past with its present and mirrors its aspirations for a better future.

It defines Indianness or Bharatiyata. It is the cornerstone of cultural nationalism, the BJP's USP.

It is rooted in egalitarianism, tolerance and compassion. It celebrates democracy. It harmonises differences. It rests on the principle of justice to all, appeasement of none.

Some may perceive merit in waffle we heard at the National Executive meeting, but it will not help remove the confusion that prevails at all levels. The party needs to enunciate Hindutva for our times. I wonder when the BJP’s ‘Blair moment’ will come.

The BJP would have done itself some good had it used this National Executive meeting to also clarify a related point: Core issues of the party are not core elements of Hindutva, they are at best tangentially linked.

Abrogation of Article 370 is to do with integration of the States and Centre-State relations. Retaining Article 370 keeps open the issue of Jammu & Kashmir’s full and final integration with the Union of India and allows others to refer to it as ‘disputed territory’. It also accords to Jammu & Kashmir a special status that is denied to the other States of the Union. None of these is a key component of Hindutva.

Article 44 of the Constitution states: "The state shall endeavour to secure for citizens a uniform civil code.” This is primarily meant to uphold the republican principles of equality for all, irrespective of gender, religion and caste. It is also aimed at modernising Indian society by ridding it of regressive personal laws. Where does the demand for Uniform Civil Code fit into the concept of Hindutva?

By not separating these two core issues from the core of its ideology, the BJP has failed to put an end to the campaign of calumny by the ‘secular’ political establishment and the ill-informed sections of media. More importantly, it has missed an opportunity to remove misconception in the minds of its cadre.

Advani has talked about organisational weaknesses and the need to address them as well as expand the party’s base in States where it is almost non-existent. The “train compartment” mentality he has referred to is extremely relevant. Hopefully it applies to all in the higher echelons of the party.

As for strengthening the organisation and strategise for the next 20 years, it will require a mindset change across the board at the top: The needless craving for allies and alliances has to be replaced by determination and a can-do spirit.

Unfortunately, those who speak about it are also strong votaries of subjugating State units of the party to allies so that local leaders don’t grow in stature and want a place inside the “train compartment”.

A last point: States representatives at the meeting were unanimous and unambiguous in their praise for Narendra Modi. Every where he visited during the campaign, they said, the cadre were galvanised and supporters enthused. Nothing more need be said.

UPDATE 24/06/09:

. This whole differentiation of 'moderate', 'soft' and 'hard' Hindutva makes little sense. Hindtuva needs to be seen as a concept, an idea, the core of the party's belief and the base of its political positioning. The moment it begins to label Hindutva, it suggests a certain discomfort with everything that this idea stands for.

. There are some in the party who believe that to be one with 'Young India' they must ape the worst trait that manifests itself in urban India among those who feel embarrassed about being an Indian and describe themselves as 'global citizens', which is no more than an imaginary identity as opposed to an identity rooted in the soil of your motherland. Hence, the effort to disown and distance yourself from Hindutva.

. Young India, we must note, lives not only in cities but in villages and district towns. That Young India is not yet a deracinated lot.

. The BJP will (hopefully) never come to resemble a Congress dominated by beautiful people who adorn Page 3 and mesmerise the chattering classes.

. The 'aspirations' that are often referred to in connection with issues the BJP should address to widen its support base cannot exclude Hindu aspirations, especially the aspiration to be treated with honour and dignity in Hindu majority India. This is not about crude majoritarianism but the majority's right not to be treated shabbily and with contempt.

. My own view is that Muslims will never vote (or vote substantially) for the BJP. The Bharatiya Jana Sangh was shunned by the Muslims as a 'Hindu' party (Varun Gandhi wasn't born then); the BJP was and continues to be shunned as a 'Hindu party'. The BJP can stand on its head and do a double somersault and a twist-and-turn. There will be applause but no votes. So, let those in the BJP who keep on plugging the secular/Muslim line not waste their breath. Muslims will either consolidate behind the Congress (if the party is seen to be able to practice aggressive appeasement, eg, communal job and education quotas) or they will vote tactically to defeat the BJP. Muslims are believed to be the decisive factor in 54 Lok Sabha constituencies; by 2014, this number will further increase. The mullah and the masjid will ensure the breach is never bridged, not even if Vande Mataram is replaced with qawaali.

. Similarly, the BJP should get rid of its diffidence for being seen as a 'Right-wing party'. Or else it should either disband of fashion itself as a clone of the Congress, a 'B' team, so to say. There is no halfway house on this front. To be 'Right' does not mean to be wrong. Nor is conservative or 'Right-wing' politics 'unenlightened'.

. Meanwhile, in the context of short-sighted political alliances, the BJP should ponder over what it has lost by striking an alliance with the Gorkha Jana Mukti Morcha in Darjeeling district of West Bengal. What it has gained is one Lok Sabha seat, limited to this election.

These are some stray thoughts I felt I should share with you after going through my notes on the National Executive.

Locating BJP's ideology

Comment
There was a time when the BJP prided itself as an 'ideological political party' with clarity of thought and purpose. Many of those who are members or supporters of the party were/are loyal to the organisation because of its 'ideology'.

I say 'many' because not all are ideologically motivated. There are those who are drawn to the BJP because of its position on certain issues (terrorism), the appeal of its leaders (Narendra Modi) or because it offers a platform for anti-Congress politics.

Then there are those who are time-servers and are on the lookout for goodies which could range from bagging contracts to brokering deals to loaves and fishes of office.

There's a third category: Flatterers whose survival (and prosperity) is linked to their treacly flattery, though it must be said that not all BJP leaders are swayed by what is crudely referred to as chamchagiri. The power wielded by the 'Flatterers Club' is demonstrated by the ease with which a 'psephologist', who now enjoys Government perks and privileges, misled the party leadership with bogus opinion and exit polls. Just how bogus can be gauged from his 'exit poll' estimate, calculated on the eve of May 16, that the NDA would get 217 seats while the UPA would halt at 176! His clout and access remain undiminished.

Soon after Shankarsinh Vaghela had brought down Keshubhai Patel's Government, Narendra Modi had ruefully told me how the party was divided in three categories of leaders/workers -- 'Khajurias', 'Hajurias' and 'Majurias'. The 'Khajurias' were the turncoats looking for an office to profit; the 'Hajurias' were the flatterers who spent their time doing 'jee hazoori', and the 'Majurias' were those who toiled 24x7 without any expectations.

Ideology, therefore, was limited to the third category.

After the BJP's defeat in the 2009 general election, three issues have been raised in the course of the ongoing debate in the public domain, although there is as yet no indication that a similar debate/discussion/deliberation has begun behind the shuttered doors of the leaders' houses in Lutyens' Delhi or at the BJP's 11, Ashoka Road headquarters.

These can be summed up in three questions:

1. Has the BJP lost the election because it has cut itself loose from its ideological mooring?
2. Has the time come for the BJP to take a re-look at its ideology and whether it is relevant for the times we live in?
3. Has Hindutva outlived its appeal, and hence its utility as a tool to mobilise support for the party?

There is nothing frivolous about any of these questions. They need to be answered, preferably by those who preside over the BJP's destiny in the short, medium and long term.

Here are my views:

1. Ideology should be neither static nor rooted in dogma. Times change, situations change, people change. There would be nothing more tragic than the BJP treating its ideology as immutable. It would make the party similar to the CPI(M) which is irrevocably wedded to Stalinist dogma.

2. But what exactly is the BJP's ideology? The ideology of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh (1951-1977) was sort of centred around Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya's exposition of 'Integral Humanism.' It would, however, be instructive to remember that the BJS was launched by the RSS as the political front of the Sangh; the first president, Syama Prasad Mookerjee, was a Hindu Mahasabhaite and subscribed to Savarkar's political philosophy. Ideology took a back seat when the BJS disbanded and merged with the Janata Party (1977-1980). When the party was reborn as Bharatiya Janata Party in 1980, there was a protracted debate on what should be its ideology. Since some of those who had joined the BJP were 'Congress Socialists', the party settled for 'Gandhian Socialism' as its ideology. The Jana Sangh component was appalled; Rajmata Vijayraje Scindia was vocal in opposing it and circulated a note questioning the very concept of 'Gandhian Socialism'. Faced with mounting opposition, 'Gandhian Socialism' was unceremoniously replaced by 'Integral Humanism'.

3. In June 1989, the BJP adopted a resolution at its National Executive meeting in Palampur (popularly referred to as the 'Palampur Resolution'), commiting the party to the agitation for the liberation of Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya, which was then being spearheaded by the VHP. It was a presidential resolution, which means it was adopted without any discussion. There were discordant voices, including that of Jaswant Singh, but these were drowned in the enthusiasm that followed and was visible during LK Advani's Somnath to Ayodhya 'Ram Rath Yatra' (terminated by Lalu Prasad Yadav at Samastipur).

4. It was around this time that LK Advani introduced two new terms into modern political discourse -- 'Pseudo-secularism', linked to the Shah Bano judgement and its fallout; and, 'Cultural Nationalism' or (the BJP's version of) 'Hindutva', with elements borrowed from Veer Savarkar's eponymous treatise, Hindutva.

5. Linked to this was the BJP's stirring slogan, "Justice for all, appeasement of none." And the three principled positions it took -- a) Abrogation of Article 370 (dating back to SP Mookerjee's agitation for the full and final integration of Jammu & Kashmir with the Union of India); b) Construction of a Ram Temple to commemorate Ram Janmasthan in Ayodhya (this followed the Palampur Resolution of 1989); and, introduction of a Uniform Civil Code (which was included in the party's charter after it adopted a resolution in end-1995) -- became the symbols of the BJP's 'Hindutva' or 'Cultural Nationalism'. It was further fleshed out with issues like cow slaughter and Hindu political aspirations. And it became an over-arching national motivator during the bleak days of VP Singh's divisive Mandal politics, getting a further fillip when Islamism erupted with full fury in the Kashmir Valley.

6. It is doubtful whether barring a handful, others in the BJP are fully acquainted with either 'Integral Humanism' or 'Hindutva'. It exists in their consciousness in a nebulous form. For the flatterers, not even that.

7. Which brings us to the question: What, then, is the BJP's ideology? The official Website of the party does not list any 'Ideology', though it has a section on 'BJP Philosophy' listed under 'About Us'. This section lists both 'Integral Humanism' and 'Hindutva', in that order, as the BJP's philosophy.

8. And therein lies the problem. What does the BJP subscribe to as its core value? Though 'Integral Humanism' and 'Hindutva' are, at one level, all-embracing and all-inclusive, they are not one and the same.

9. The BJP has never really tried to explain, and elaborate, on either. Preaching to the converted does not help. It needs to 'sell' ideas contained in both to a wider audience, not necessarily to convert but to convince.

10. The issue really is not one of the BJP 'revisiting' its ideology or revising it; it is of internalising that which it lists as its 'philosophy' and extrapolating from it. To jettison either or both would be to give up its distincitve identity, of which some still remains, and become just another party hankering for power, a clone of the Congress but minus its inherent strengths.

By the way, the revamped and redesigned BJP Website has dropped a key feature of the old Website. There used to be an icon on the side-bar by clicking on which you could hear the full version of Vande Mataram. Since those who are responsible forrevamping and redesigning the Website are also the brains behind the mission to 'secularise' the BJP, I can only assume that it was a considered decision to distance the BJP from Vande Mataram and disown the National Song as being part of its identity. Ironically, it was the BJP's efforts that led to Parliament according equal status to the National Song as that accorded to the National Anthem -- each session of Parliament begins with Jana Gana Mana and ends with Vande Mataram.

There could be two reasons for dropping Vande Mataram from the BJP Website. One, it makes the BJP 'look' Hindu and thus 'offends' Muslim sensitivities. Two, it makes the BJP appear 'old fashioned' and hence prevents it from 'connecting' with the youth. But Muslims aren't exactly tripping over each other to embrace the BJP, nor are the youth rushing to vote for the party.

Interestingly, although perhaps not coincidentally, the redesigned RSS Website has also dropped Vande Mataram.

I guess nationalism, Hindu, cultural or any which way, is no longer a dirty word only for the 'secularists' but also for our so-called 'nationalists'.