THAT the BJP should welcome the Supreme Court judgment banning the use of religion and caste in politics is perhaps the biggest irony of Indian politics. The party after all owes its phenomenal growth and ascent to its successful use of religious sentiments on emotive issues like Ayodhya. The BJP's strength in Parliament for years remained just 2 — represented by its stalwarts Vajpayee and Advani — until the party decided to take charge of Vishva Hindu Parishad's Ram temple movement. It was Advani's rath yatra that helped the BJP multiply its strength from 2 to around 200 seats, eventually bringing the party to power under Vajpayee. Narendra Modi's stupendous success in 2014 had been built on the efforts of the two giants. His own rabble-rousing rhetoric and the defining events of 2002, burnishing his credentials as a tough-talking "strong Hindu leader" did the rest. The more he refused to atone for the 2002 riots, the more his legend seemed to grow. By refusing to apologize or even acknowledge 2002, Modi turned the blemish into a badge of honor even as an unsure Congress pussyfooted around him. Without Gujarat 2002 on his bio, it's doubtful he would have made it to the BJP's nomination for the top job, let alone win the polls. True, Modi did not openly seek votes in the name of religion or caste in 2014. But then he did not need to. Everyone knows and understands what he stands for. Even during the 2014 elections, fought in the name of development, there had been repeated references to Pakistani plots, terrorists and Bangladeshi infiltrators, which are interchangeably used in Hindutva-speak to refer to Muslims. But why blame the BJP alone? The Congress actually invented this game, often hunting with hounds and running with hares. Indeed, the history of this politics of tokenism, using people's beliefs and caste affiliations to garner votes is as old as the party itself. Everyone else learned from the grand old party in this respect. During its long history of struggle against the British, the party of Gandhi and Nehru often spoke in a fashion that the BJP later perfected. That is, using religious sensibilities and symbols and often acting as the spokesperson of the majority. Indeed, it was this tendency that forced Jinnah, a staunchly secular politician inspired by the ideals of Dadabhai Nauroji and Westminster liberals, to leave the Congress in disgust and join the Muslim League. Indeed, this "soft Hindutva" of the Congress played a crucial role in convincing Jinnah and his followers that the Hindus and Muslims couldn't live together and a separate Muslim homeland was the only way forward. After India's Independence, the Congress and the Hindutva camp played a classic good cop-bad cop routine with Muslims. On the one hand, it presided over thousands of communal riots across India, allowing Hindutva forces a free rein to target the hapless minority, breaking it economically and psychologically again and again. On the other hand, the party presented itself as the only protector of minorities, demanding their votes as wages of protection. This is an endless saga of classic doublespeak and hypocrisy of the "secular" Congress and democratic fascism of Hindutva with Muslims caught in between. An endless cycle of exploitation and injustice that the community understood well but hasn't been able to break. This is why they eagerly jumped on the bandwagons of new messiahs like Mulayam Singh, Lalu Yadav and Mayawati when they surfaced. Although the new players are not as exploitative as the old guard, it's more or less the same game with a new cast. All that the Muslims have got in return all these years for their votes is "protection" from their eternal foe. Of course, this is still a democracy. However, the religious and communal identity of both the electors and elected remains crucial to the final outcome. It's the elephant in the room that everyone pretends not to see. In a country where one's birth is as crucial as one's beliefs, you cannot expect anything different. India's constitution acknowledges and recognizes this reality. This is why even reservations in government jobs are determined on the basis of caste. Political parties have for years shamelessly and repeatedly exploited the sectarian identities of voters often appealing to their basic communal instincts and beliefs to laugh all the way to the vote bank. Candidates are carefully selected by parties according to the communal and religious composition of constituencies. You cannot pick a Muslim candidate for a Hindu majority constituency or a low-caste Dalit for a constituency dominated by upper castes and hope to win. Like it or not, this is the truth of Indian politics. Even if you accept this as an inescapable reality of Indian society at large, clearly the time has come for putting an end to all the hate, exploitation and injustice that politicians have inflicted on religious minorities and Dalits for decades with their politics of identity. The SC verdict banning the use of religion and caste to seek votes is therefore most welcome. Let's hope this will finally drain the swamp. But why limit these curbs on exploitation of religion and caste to elections? There must be a total and blanket ban on the use of sectarian identities and issues by politicians as a shortcut to power. Everyone knows who they are and how the cynical game has been played all these years. For years thugs like Thackeray got away with murder and much more, in the name of Hindu sentiments. The same Supreme Court led by Justice J.S. Verma gave him the fig leaf of an excuse arguing Hinduism and Hindutva is not a religion but a way of life! Indeed, no prominent politician in India's history, from Delhi 1984 to Ayodhya 1992 to Gujarat 2002, has ever been held to account. And now the BJP has the gall to use the court ruling to target the usual suspects like the Muslim League and Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen. But everyone knows who remains a clear and present danger to the nation's integrity and security. They may betray no sectarian identity but whose real agenda is little different from that of European fascist parties. They see and treat all minorities as second-class citizens. While their leaders sing the mantra of inclusive growth and progress, they encourage their second lieutenants like Sakshi Maharaj and Yogi Adityanath (both MPs!) to spout venom against Muslims. All this must stop if the highest court in the land means what it says. This may be the best and much needed judgment in India's history. Now go ahead and make everyone comply with it. The judiciary must truly act as a watchdog of the constitution, to protect the secular and inclusive character of Indian democracy. Those who openly purvey hate and discriminate against a community or section of society for electoral gains and power should have no place in a democracy. — Aijaz Zaka Syed is a Gulf based writer and author. Email: [email protected]
