The Hindu Jinnah?
L K Advani's Somnath to Ayodhya yatra in September 1990 promoted discord among different groups just as Jinnah's Direct Action Day in August 1946, which fomented violence between Hindus and Muslims. Yet, comparing Advani to Jinnah may be unfair to the latter, says Ramachandra Guha.
On September 27, the leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party, L.K. Advani, found himself in the town of Moradabad, in western Uttar Pradesh; two days later he was at the other end of the country, spending the night in the capital of Meghalaya, Shillong. Naturally, he was obliged to deliver speeches in both places.
In Moradabad, Advani said it was “his wish that a temple was constructed in Ayodhya”. According to one news report, he then “claimed this was also the wish of majority of the citizens”. In Shillong, Advani said of the attacks on Christians in Orissa and Karnataka that “I strongly condemn these acts of violence and vandalism which cannot be condoned or justified”. Then he added: “Let the people belonging to all religious communities consciously strengthen the bonds of Indianness that tie us together in the larger interest of national community”.
These statements are considerably at variance with one another. But each made ‘sense’ in its particular context. In UP, where the BJP once enjoyed power and hopes to do so again, Advani appealed to the baser, more extreme elements in the Hindutva community. Speaking at a rally of party workers, he urged them to once more raise a deeply divisive issue. In so doing, he made a spurious claim, a claim perhaps necessary to spur the cadres, but a bogus one all the same. Even in UP, where Ayodhya is located, the BJP has never managed to gain more than 40 per cent of the vote. In other states, their standing among the electorate is even lower. There is no proof that a ‘majority’ of Indians support the construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya, and plenty of evidence that suggests that, in fact, the contrary is true.
Had Advani not embarked on that ill-advised march, there may never have been an ‘Indian Mujahideen’. Had Advani not encouraged Hindu goons to carry weapons and use them, there may not have been that pogrom against Muslims in Gujarat in 2002, or, indeed, these more recent attacks on Christians in Orissa and Karnataka.
• Still suffering, five years after
Shillong radically differs from Moradabad in its religious composition, as well as in its political profile. The BJP has no presence in this state, but still, Advani needs to persuade the Christians of the North-east that he is a ‘responsible’ man, who can be trusted by them as prime minister. Here, in speaking as he did, he was being truthful to the facts — since India will not survive if we put sectarian affiliations above the common bonds that unite us. However, he was being untrue to his own self. If Advani really believes in the arguments of his Shillong speech, I invite him to Bangalore, and urge him to repeat in those same words that condemnation of violence against Christians.
Politicians need to cultivate different audiences, and politicians speak in multiple voices all the time. I suppose I could dismiss this conjunction of dissimilar statements by Advani as the typical hypocrisy of a normal politician. But since this man is the leader of my country’s major opposition party, and since he may be the next prime minister of India, I (and we) need to take it more seriously than that.
In the demonology of the liberal Indian, Narendra Modi occupies a special place. In fact, Advani has done much greater damage to the idea of India. In the spring of 2002, the Gujarat chief minister violated his constitutional oath of office and permitted (and perhaps even encouraged) attacks on the minority community. Advani has permitted and encouraged attacks on Muslims for almost 20 years now.
On September 25, 1990, L.K. Advani left the temple town of Somnath, in Gujarat, on a 6,000-mile journey through eight states that he intended to complete, five weeks later, at Ayodhya. Along the way, Advani made many speeches aimed at tearing asunder the bonds of Indianness and promoting discord among different groups. At each stop, he was welcomed and sent off by activists of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bajrang Dal, brandishing swords and trishuls.
Advani’s sectarian views were of long origin — they dated to his schooldays in Karachi, before Independence and Partition. But this muscular brand of mass politics was a recent preference. For much of his career, Advani had been an organization man, who worked in the party office, preparing briefs and training cadres. It was only in 1989 — less than a year before his yatra — that he had fought and won his first Lok Sabha election.
I do not know whether Advani knows or will admit it, but there are striking parallels between his political career and that of Mohammad Ali Jinnah. In August 1946, Jinnah launched Direct Action Day, a project aimed at fomenting violence between Hindus and Muslims. The ‘direct action’ was at odds with his personal political style, which was more suited to conversations in court-rooms and mansions. Likewise, a roadshow with many speeches to mass audiences was more suited to the temperament of Advani’s colleague, Atal Bihari Vajpayee. However, Vajpayee was a reconciler who was never really reconciled to the divisive agenda of the Ayodhya campaign. Besides, his speeches usually contained more humour than hate. So Advani offered to abandon the back office for the public stage and lead the movement to set Hindus and Muslims at each other’s throats.
The fall-out of Direct Action day — bloody riots in eastern Bengal, then in Bihar, still later in the Punjab — vindicated Jinnah’s position that Muslims would not be safe in a ‘Hindu dominated’ India. Likewise, the fall-out of the Somnath to Ayodhya march — riots across northern and western India —made enough Hindus suspicious of and full of hatred towards Muslims to propel the BJP to national prominence. However, they could not win enough seats to rule in New Delhi on their own. So they brought back the moderate, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, to head a coalition of many parties of which all except one wanted power without subscribing to a hardline Hindutva agenda.
Now Vajpayee has retired from politics, and his colder, more calculating counterpart has become the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate. Thus we once more hear talk of the importance of Ayodhya. I think I speak for a majority of Hindus when I say that Ram lives in my heart; my love for him does not depend on a large white structure built by the fallible hand of man. However, because of Advani, millions of Indians were made to focus, for years on end, on the fate of an obscure medieval building, when they could have been better occupied asking for better schools and hospitals and for more dignified employment.
Among the poison fruits of the Ayodhya movement has been homegrown Islamic terrorism. Their homes burnt, their existence denied, some angry young men have sought refuge in extremism. Had Advani not embarked on that ill-advised march, there may never have been an ‘Indian Mujahideen’. Had Advani not encouraged Hindu goons to carry weapons and use them, there may not have been that pogrom against Muslims in Gujarat in 2002, or, indeed, these more recent attacks on Christians in Orissa and Karnataka.
Already, too many lives have been lost because of the Ayodhya campaign. Battled by Islamic terrorism, challenged by Hindu fundamentalism, the last thing the country needs is for a politician to stoke the flames further. But perhaps Advani has judged that the first thing he needs to achieve his life’s ambition is to stir trouble again. Just as Jinnah abandoned constitutional politics in order to achieve the nation whose government he would head, so his fellow townsman shall cynically and systematically set one group of Indians against another in order to become prime minister.
Is Lal Krishna Advani the Hindu Jinnah? Some would argue that the comparison is unfair — to Jinnah. After all, the Muslims were a minority in British India. Perhaps they had more reason to be threatened. Again, the riots provoked by Jinnah’s call for ‘direct action’ ran for about a year and a half. In contrast, the riots and divisions engendered by the property dispute in Ayodhya have now extended for more than two decades. And the main leader of the BJP, the face past and present of the Ayodhya movement, wants more riots and divisions yet.
Filed under
Cite this article
Ramachandra Guha (2008) ‘The Hindu Jinnah?’, India Together, 15 October 2008. https://indiatogether.org/advani-op-ed/
12 reader responses
Add a response
Rahul S · 16 October 2008
Mr. Guha, Your article reminds of all valid and important facts, especially considering the very distinct possibility of Mr. Advani becoming our PM in the coming months. However, I am sure most thinking citizens/voters of India are facing the extreme challenge of wanting to contribute to our political system, but are hard pressed in choosing between the lesser of 2 evils. While the BJP's flaws have been aptly highlighted here, our alternate, the NCP has exhibited a comprehensive and total political paralysis. They have proved to consistently incompetent as a group to govern India, despite (and possibly because of) the presence of highly dignified and respectful Dr. Singh as the leader. What I, and I suspect a large number would like to see is an informed debate in the independent and liberal media, analyzing both sides of the coin. There is a reason why a large majority of educated middle class Indians do not exercise their primary right to vote. At this stage, I cannot get myself to support the policies or actions of any major party. The media has to play a critical role in informing the thinking citizens, for the health of our democracy. Jai Hind
Praveen · 17 October 2008
It is sad that to note that mr.guha tries to equate hindu revivalism with islamic terrorism. Hindus want to live a life of eqaulity and not be treated as a second class citizens by the western educated and marxist oriented political parties like congress and cpm. The reason for spurt in islamic terrorism is the increasing indoctrination of young muslims through mass media like peace tv run muslim fundamentalist preacher zakir naik and the beaming of pakistani fundamentalist channels like QTV in india homes. To prevent the spread of islamic terrorism the quthorities should calmp down on such hate filled channels and stop denying basic rights to hindus. And the congress should also stop it's campaign to destroy the ram sethu.
Raja V Swaminathan · 17 October 2008
I am a Hindu, brought up to believe from my childhood days, that if you are in trouble, pray to Rama and He will take care of you. Thus when somebody claims to be 'taking care' of Rama (we have heard people claiming that Ram appeared in their dreams and 'pleaded' that his temple should be built!) I feel like laughing. This is the height of arrogance. When a majority claims to be threatened or 'fears' being marginalised, it can at best be termed mischievous. The biggest threat to Hinduism is from within. I enjoyed reading your article and could not agree with you more. Regards.
Pramod Kulkarni · 18 October 2008
This article by Mr.Guha is a great fun. More than any evidence, Guha has relied on his (of & likeminded)own firm beleives that Hindus & Mr.Advani are communal.All these assumptions are as fake as concept of secularism. Mr.Jinnah was strong supporter of Tilak, but later turned up in to Muslim League leader because of Nehru-Gandhiji's political tricks. As against Advaniji is fighting for the right of Hindus in this country. Hindu is that who has faith in this nation, its historic persons,land n culture. Hindu is a way of life. No need to try Mr.Guha get up from his beliefs, all that is purposeful act by him That sells that's why he writes..his shop continues.
dkaps · 21 October 2008
It finally took L K Advani - to bring out from a leftist historian that the violence in pre-partition days was a DIRECT result of Direct Action Day. The violence was an assault by Muslims on Hindus to start with! The Sikhs and Hindus had reacted thereafter... Truth is that the first round of violence for almost 6 months was ENTIRELY by COngress thereafter against the Muslims in Bengal. I think the Hindus have become sick and tired of this. Just as an example - - Statement by Min of state for home (congress party) announced ~800 Muslims and 250 Hindus died in Gujarat. - >2800 Sikhs died in Delhi (ONE city) alone in 1984. Even Rajiv Gandhi justified the killings. Yet he was a secularist and a "great man". And JD Tytler was a Min. in the Manmohan Singh Cabinet!! No words from people like Guha for all that! Even in Nandigram Dalits and Muslims were specifically targeted!! So the qs: What is secularism? - When Sikh is killed? When Muslim is killed? When a Hindu is killed? or when any human is killed? - if Hindu kills Muslims that is communalism.. but when Communists kill Muslim that is OK? like in Nandigram!
rizvi · 31 October 2008
all this nuisance was created by the political parties who fight election on behalf of communalism since they have nothing to say in the public,fight election as americans do
Kuku · 2 November 2008
I think this is giving too much credit (discredit) to Advani/Jinnah. What either of them did was adding finishing touches to a long process by which "educated" Indians had lost touch with their roots and religious identities and easy prey to fascist ideas.Instead of just pointing the blame on these two, we need to understand how this process unfolded so we can take back control and re-root ourselves, feel more comfortable in our identities so it cant be shaken easily.
yasser latif Hamdani · 19 November 2008
Guha is - as usual - being economical with the truth. Jinnah never intended direct action day to be a day of violence and for the most part it was a day of civil disobedience. The events in Calcutta had to do more with the bus loads of sikhs and hindus shipped in by the Congress leaders that one reads in Francis Tuker's account. Calcutta's underworld paid for this. The victims of violence predominantly were Muslims in Calcutta - this much is clear from the the transfer of power papers. How long are you Indians going to blame Jinnah for direct action day violence carried out at the behest of the Congress Party? DAD was the first and last call for civil disobedience by the League and it was necessitated by the communal attitude taken by the Congress in the aftermath of the Cabinet mission plan disaster.
Gourav · 7 December 2008
i just wish to know why Mr Guha doesn't speak on killing of hindus in North East and in kashmir? Who is secular in this country ? Most of us talk about violence after Babri but what about killing of hindus in Kashmir before this incident? about 200 temples destroyed in Kashmir but who speak for them because hindus did not become terrorist even after so much prosecution in India.Are hindus not poor in this country ? Are they getting anything more than their so called minority community?
Mithun · 15 December 2008
Sir,you speak about giving up Ayodhya and avoid islamic terrorism.I still don't understand sir,you support everything saying they are minority and for the sole reason that they are minority,should the majority adjust?This would be nothing more than slavery. Its not the minority that is suffering,it is the Hindus,who are downtrodden and poor who are being victims.Every nation identifies itself with its ancient culture.But,we in the name of secularism are killing our own culture.Sir,this was an ancient Hindu peaceful nation where every person used to say "Vasudaiva Kutumbhakam"(whole world is my family) and "sarve janaha sukhino Bhavanthu"(Let every person be happy) and this tolerance which is the greatness of the people has been misused by others.So,Advani was right about the Ayodhya issue.Hindutva has been a peaceful religion and it will be peaceful unless and until others don't trouble its existence.This nation has its roots from Vedic tradition and still the Hindu Vedic tradition has to fight for its own right to build a temple?We have been too tolerant.Advani was right in asking the right we deserve.Hinduism has been ancient compared to any other religion in India and it should have higher preference and not based on minority. And Sir,the aim of terrorism is to create fear among people and don't you think by not organising marches,which can unite India(just like Advani did),just because of the fear of terrorism,we are making their goal successful.Why should we live in fear and without our right,when the whole nation belongs to us?
Chethan · 27 April 2009
Dear Mr. Guha, Thanks for a very good article. Your argument that the comments of a politician who may become the next PM must be taken more seriously is very much acceptable. It is pity to note that Mr. Advani himself knows what is wrong with the ideology of Hindutva and still propagates it. His attempts to come out of the hardliner image was very much visible in the "Secular Jinnah" episode, who then said that the day on which Babri Masjid was demolished was "the saddest day in my life". We certainly have all the reasons to hope our PM-in-waiting to have the courage to say the same thing in a Moradabad and a Shillong too. With regard to the comments speaking about "Vasudaiva Kutumbhakam", unfortunately, it is only in the theory. Hindutva never has the interests of all the sections of the Hindus, but those of the higher castes. For the people who are at the extreme right, everybody else, naturally, looks left. Thank you.
ak · 4 May 2009
I could not have agreed you more. But what is more disturbing ? The poisonous fruit also has a name like VHP,RSS and Bajrang Dal who are condemning anything which is Secular.They have made the minority communities life into living Hell. Why can't we move forward living behind our past,you want to protect something do so but Don't destroy others life and property. I forsee similar onslaught of minority communities by BJP like onslaught of jews by Nazis in near future.