By Anwarulhaq Baig
NEW DELHI—Veteran journalist and a member of Press Council of India Jaishankar Gupta has slammed the use of religion, particularly Ram Temple inauguration by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, to gain political mileage.
He made these comments while delivering a lecture on “Politicization of Religion: Is it right or wrong,” organized by the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (JIH) headquarters here on Saturday last. Echoing similar sentiments, JIH President Syed Sadatullah Husaini, who presided over the programme, came down heavily on the politicization of religion and termed the Ram Temple event by PM Modi as a violation of Constitution’s secular values.
Mr Gupta discussed various topics, spanning from the pre-independence era to the current political landscape, addressing the misuse of religion for political gains. He raised questions about the timing and necessity of the Ram temple event orchestrated by PM Modi.
Gupta highlighted the current deteriorating situation, drawing parallels to the Emergency era, with opposition leaders facing imprisonment through agencies like ED and CBI. He pointed out that the Ram temple, once a tool for BJP leaders in past elections, has resurfaced as a means for Modi to gain political mileage.
Expressing concerns about potential orchestrated incidents, Gupta alleged that the Modi government resorted to temple politics by hosting the January 22nd event, using the Ram Mandir issue to gratify religious sentiments and increase his popularity.
Citing objections from Hindu religious leaders and the rejection of invitations by all four Shankaracharyas, the veteran journalist said that the Hindu seers called it a drama.
Raising questions about the justification for demolishing the Babri Masjid, Gupta noted reports claiming the under-construction temple is located about 900 meters to even 3 kilometers away from the site originally claimed by Hindus to mark Ram’s birthplace.
Gupta also exposed alleged financial incentives provided to media channels for favorable coverage of the temple event, revealing, “Almost all the TV channels have teams in Ayodhya to cover the event. But sources suggest each channel was offered around ₹15-20 crore to not only cover the event but also portray it in a positive manner.”
JIH President Syed Sadatullah Husaini criticizes misuse of religion for politics
Speaking at the programme, JIH president explained that the real issue today is not the relationship between religion and politics but the brazen misuse of faith for political ends by those who are not even serious about their own religions. Mr. Husaini said no religion in the world can justify lies, deceit, injustice, bloodshed and hatred. He questioned how people committing such acts in the name of religion can be deemed serious about their faiths. He pointed out that only those who sincerely follow a religion have qualities like fear of God, love for fellow humans, thirst for justice and fairness.
Underlining India’s multi-cultural and multi-religious social fabric, Mr.Husaini said the Constitution is an agreement for different communities to co-exist harmoniously in the country. He asserted that the spirit of secularism lies in assimilating diverse religious communities, ensuring respect for all, and allowing freedom of religious practice.
However, the JIH president alleged that the entire state machinery today is engaged in a project of one particular religion, referring to the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya. He criticized the allocation of several thousand crores of rupees for a project associated with a particular religion, declaring holidays and granting it the status of a national festival. Such practices, he asserts, are incompatible with the secular principles enshrined in India’s Constitution.
The JIH leader pointed out what he sees as a contradiction in the government’s stance, where offering Namaz in an open place is considered a crime against secularism, while the entire state apparatus is engaged in a project associated with a specific religion. He labelled this as a form of hypocrisy that cannot be deemed correct by any conscientious person.
Ayodhya Dispute and Rise of Hindutva Politics
Tracing the history of the politicization of religion in India since the freedom movement, Jaishankar Gupta attributed the “two-nation theory” to Hindu Mahasabha leader Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, who advocated for separate nationhood based on fundamental differences between Hindus and Muslims.
Gupta revealed a historical fact – the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League fought elections and formed a government together in undivided Bengal under British Raj. This collaboration, despite Gandhi’s Quit India movement boycotting elections in 1942, marked a significant political alliance. While Muslim League’s Maulana Fazlul Haq became the Chief Minister, Hindu Mahasabha leader Shyama Prasad Mukherjee was his deputy. Notably, Mukherjee later became the founding president of the Bharatiya Jan Sangh, the precursor to the BJP.
The veteran journalist described the rise of right-wing elements within the Congress party during the early post-independence period, including Sardar Patel, G.B. Pant, and Purushottam Das Tandon. He characterized them as a pressure group pushing for the expulsion of socialists from the party, eventually leading to the departure of leaders like J.P. Narayan, Ram Manohar Lohia, and Acharya Narendra Dev. Approximately 11 socialists, including Narendra Dev, who had won their respective constituencies, voluntarily resigned in a display of moral conviction.
During the same period, Gupta alleged that in 1949, idols were placed inside the Babri mosque under the leadership of Abhiram Das, a sadhu in Ayodhya, with the protection or supervision of K.K. Nair, the then District Magistrate. Gupta highlighted the subsequent Faizabad by-election in Acharya Narendra Dev’s constituency, alleging that the Congress, under the leadership of Govind Ballabh Pant and Purushottam Das Tandon, fielded the same sadhu, Baba Raghav Das, and resorted to portraying Dev as an atheist, calling a vote for him a betrayal of Lord Ram. Dev eventually lost the elections narrowly.
Gupta also mentioned Shakuntala Nair, KK Nair’s wife, who rose to prominence in the aftermath of the idol placement. He asserted that she was elected to the Lok Sabha by the Hindu Mahasabha and subsequently re-elected by the Jan Sangh. She even served as an MLA in 1962 and was again elected to Lok Sabha in 1967 on a Bharatiya Jan Sangh ticket. Gupta linked her success to her husband’s role in facilitating the idol placement.
Accusing the BJP-RSS combine of leveraging the Ram Mandir issue for political gains after a significant setback in the 1984 elections, Gupta detailed how the matter gained prominence, ultimately leading to the BJP’s formal commitment to build the temple during a VHP conference in 1984.
Gupta stated that the BJP initially remained silent until the Rajiv Gandhi government opened the lock of the Babri Masjid, allowing puja as per a court decision. The foundation stone (shila niyas) for the temple was then laid. As the 1989 elections approached, Rajiv Gandhi and Congress strategists decided to kickstart their poll campaign from Ayodhya. This prompted the BJP to formally declare their commitment to building the temple at the disputed sanctum sanctorum site in Ayodhya during their Palanpur, Himachal Pradesh national executive meeting.
The turning point came in August 1990, Gupta said, when the VP Singh government’s implementation of the Mandal Commission’s recommendations of 27% reservations for OBCs prompted the BJP to intensify its focus on Hindutva issues, including the Ayodhya dispute.
Following the Mandal Commission report, Gupta quotes, “George Fernandes disclosed in a speech that, ‘within 48 hours of implementing the Mandal Commission report, LK Advani called me and said, you have left us with no option. Now we will have to take forward the issue of Hindutva and the temple-mosque dispute.”
Gupta disclosed that within a month of the Mandal Commission recommendations, the infamous Ram Rath Yatra led by L.K. Advani was launched on September 25, 1990, marking a significant shift in the BJP’s electoral fortunes.
Referring to statements of BJP leaders, Gupta said the Ayodhya matter was used by them as a “bearer cheque” to attain power. Gupta reveals that when the press asked if Ayodhya would again become an election issue in 1996 or 1998, BJP leader Sushma Swaraj then called it “a bearer cheque” for the party, implying it gave one-time electoral gains.
In an interview with Gupta, RSS and BJP leader Keshav Bhai Thackeray also compared the Ayodhya matter to “a boat required crossing the river” but “not needed afterward.”
Sharing an encounter with Narendra Modi during a National Council of the BJP in Chennai when Modi was the party’s national general secretary, Jaishankar Gupta reveals, “At that time, the Chennai Declaration was passed, and Modi was the one who presented it.
Subsequently, Modi asked me, ‘Have you listened to what I said?’ I replied, ‘Absolutely, yes.’ Insisting that I publish the declaration with his name, he reiterated, ‘Now, BJP’s people should hold the flag in one hand and the NDA agenda in the other, keeping issues like Ram Janmabhoomi, Triple Talaq, and Article 370 in cold storage.”
Commenting on the attitude of key BJP leaders towards the issues like Ram temple, Gupta pointed out that for one leader, the Ayodhya issue was like a bearer cheque, while another considered it a boat to cross the river. As for the third leader, Modi, who is now prostrating at the feet of Ramji to win elections, had once wanted to keep the issue in cold storage.
Expressing disappointment in the opposition’s ineffectiveness, Gupta cited instances of members of Parliament being suspended without a strong protest. Gupta said, “It is surprising that when over 140 members of Parliament have been suspended for the entire tenure, not a single MP showed the courage to tender a resignation from the Parliament in protest, even when just three to four months are left before the end of the present term.”
Gupta questioned the impartiality of the judiciary, citing specific judgments like the Ayodhya verdict. He pointed out that while the court acknowledged the illegality of the Babri Masjid demolition, it ultimately ordered the construction of a Ram temple at the disputed site based on “faith.”
Lambasting the politicization of institutions, Gupta pointed out that judges of the Supreme Court’s Constitution bench, which delivered the Ayodhya verdict, were rewarded with post-retirement jobs by the current regime. He suggested that such appointments could be considered a form of bribery, calling for a five-year restriction on such appointments to ensure the integrity of the judiciary.
Referring to mob lynchings in the name of cow protection in North India, the senior journalist questioned BJP’s doublespeak in promising beef supply in some states while banning cow slaughter in others, particularly in Hindi belt.
Expressing concern over the contemporary political climate, Gupta pointed to the growing influence of the ruling government over media, corporates, and bureaucracy. He warned that BJP is aiming to secure over 400 Lok Sabha seats in 2024 to fulfill the RSS’ goal of turning India into a Hindu Rashtra by 2025 when it completes 100 years.
Gupta reiterated his strong opposition to the idea of a Hindu Rashtra or Nizam Mustafa (Muslim state), warning against the potential discrimination faced by various communities if such an agenda were realized. He urged people to protest peacefully against any move towards establishing a Hindu Rashtra, emphasizing the importance of preserving democratic values. Calling for democratic and peaceful opposition to the powers eyeing a Hindu Rashtra by 2025, he said minorities like Muslims are being targeted now, but even faiths like Sikhism, Christianity, Jainism, and Buddhism will be in the line of fire in due course of time.
JIH Leader: dialogue on governance systems, including secularism, democracy, or nizam mustafa, can continue
Discussing various governance systems, including secularism, democracy, or Nizam Mustafa (Islamic system), the JIH leader advocated for continuing discussions to determine the most suitable system for the country. He suggested two key approaches: first, continuing sincere dialogues on the merits of different systems, allowing individuals to express their preferences, and second, establishing values universally accepted by the world to evaluate the righteousness of any governance system.
“Regardless of the chosen system, there are certain absolute values that must be upheld. No system is acceptable if it allows injustice, murder, violence, or dispossession of any section of society. These are universal principles we must agree upon before engaging in serious discussions about alternative systems,” Mr. Husaini asserted.
Despite the challenges, Mr. Husaini expressed optimism that the current situation of injustice is not permanent. He asserted that injustice goes against human nature and therefore has a short lifespan. Urging serious efforts, he emphasized the need to educate the public about the negative consequences of current practices, emphasizing that their emotions are being exploited, leading them into an undesirable state.
Mr. Husaini concluded by highlighting the collective responsibility of citizens, urging them to work sincerely towards positive change. He emphasized the importance of conveying the message that the current situation is detrimental to the country, and citizens are being misled into a false paradise. Through awareness and efforts, he believes the situation can be transformed, urging everyone to engage in serious dialogue within their circles and communities.
