Saturday, April 05, 2014

More secularism?

The Shahi Imam Bukhari of Delhi - a pious soul himself - who apparently has a non bailable warrant against him - exhorts Muslims to vote for Congress. This can be called a blatant support of corruption, but otherwise, it is also a blatant call for people of a particular religion to vote  for Soniaji and her prodigious son. Now, we do not know what the deal behind this 'appeal' is - neither will we come to know. (See part 1 - what passes off as secularism)

But this blatantly communal call hardly finds a mention on the timelines (as of today morning) of prominent intellectuals (Javed Akhtar, Barkha Dutt among others) who will take less than a microsecond if Balasaheb Thackeray were to do something like this. The weasel words used in this situation is usually, "Yes, he can say" or "It is his opinion" or "Ultimately, ballot is secret". But watch out for the voting shares post election and then we can argue. But then again, even at that point, none of these intellectuals will condemn something like this. Why is that so? Ask yourself.

If this were a head of religious mutt who issued a call to vote for all Hindus to vote for Modi - firstly, it will be the Hindus who will condemn it. However, post yesterdays statement, I see very few co-religionists condemning it. One person has written a lame tweet  which is neither here nor there. But if silence is acceptance, this silence is a very loud indicator - that this is secularism in their definition.

Meanwhile the church is not far off in issuing calls to support 'secular' parties. Whatever that means. Because if there is one party that is communal - it is the congress - but of course, by calling it secular, they become secular.

Both these mean only thing. That the church and the peace loving religion think that Hindus are communal and only they are secular. And I suppose Hindus agree.

Ask yourself, why are religious organizations getting into democracy? Why cant they stay out? Are they trying to unite the country or divide it? What are the parties doing? Uniting or dividing? And all parties have people of all religions (except perhaps a IUML or a MIM) - why are the religious institutions and quasi authorities getting into it? What is the deal?

A follow up to this post will happen post election results - and we can see how the vote shares pan out by religion...

No comments: