You must Sign In to post a response.
  • Category: Gujarat

    Gujarat elections - defeat of minority appeasement model & pseudo-secularism?

    India was a secular country from the very beginning of its origin where people have lived with so much harmony. Whether the leaders were Hindu or Muslims but common public of India was always secular. But the Nehruvian model of secularism which tried to define this secularism in India actually created more division of society. Few example of this kind of secularism are when -
    1. Pandit Nehru opposed the visit of Dr Rajendra Prashad's visit in Somnath temple in 1951 terming it as secularism and it is being wrong to visit temple being in a post of president.
    2. Shah Bano case when Congress hesitated to bring uniform code despite supreme court's decision regarding the case.

    And the defeat of this forced ideology is clearly visible in Gujrat election. Do you relate this defeat with the Nehruvian secularism forced in India and minority appeasement of Congress?
  • #619789
    Any result can be interpreted in anyway as per our own bias.
    The present results from Gujarat also will be interpreted in exactly opposite ways by the BJP and Congress (and respective supporters). But I do not see what you said is the main reason, because Congress has actually improved seats.

    While these things can be debated, ultimately when the person goes to vote, the factors which rule his mind in deciding to whom to vote will be entirely different. Many times personal likes and dislikes, his own personal problems,promise from someone ,the proximity and familiarity of a particular candidate- all these will weigh on him.
    We all know that there are certain thing no one will be able to change drastically eventhough they will promise. It is like a fact that the cow's picture on a paper is not going to give milk. Similarly there will be lot of practical difference between promise and performance.
    Apart from any other factor, election arithmetic is something quite different. Interpretation and explanation will be just academic post mortem

  • #619797
    The victory in Gujarat is a positive vote to the ruling party in the state as well as in the centre. In a way, I accept the author's view on the subject. In the guise of secularism, the earlier rulers took a ride on some religions and that particular religion is suffering a lot and will continue to suffer for more time.
    But as opined by Venkiteswaran it is ultimately how the voter's mind will work when he is entering the polling booth at the time of pressing the EVM. Only after getting the results the political pundits will come out with different theories and analysis.

    always confident

  • #619809
    The author has used the terms "Nehruvian model of secularism" and "minority appeasement of Congress" in her content. In a previous thread by another author, the same terms were used. I asked the author of that thread to explain these two terms and give examples of the same which he did not give. I wish the author of this thread to explain and give examples for the both other than the ones she gave.
    1. Jawaharlal Nehru opposed the visit of the then President of India, Dr. Rajendra Prasad to the inauguration of the renovated Somnath temple on the grounds of secularism. In what way Nehru created more division of the society? He stuck to the principle of secularism as he believed. Did Nehru object to Hinduism? No, he wanted to project a secular stance of the Government. Is the author's objection as a Hindu or citizen of India?
    2. I accept the fact that the conduct of the Congress party in Shah Bao case is deplorable.

    The Gujarat election campaign mainly focussed on personal allegations and counter allegations. It is not about any ideology or the development of the State.

    " Be Good and Do Good "

  • #619818
    I fully support Ms. Joshi. Secularism means separation of state's affairs from religion. In India, it was diluted as equal respect to all religions. Later it has been changed to appeasement of two particular religions for the sake of votes. Because it is believed that the followers of these two particular religions vote en masse.
    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #619826
    I think,It is not a defeat of minority appeasement model and psedo-secularism.Congress has improved its seats. Gujarat model development is a widely accepted concept. Due to anti-incumbency BJP's seats are reduced and that of Congress improved. Cast wise polarization might have happened for Congress gain. Results are to be studied in detail.

  • #619832
    #619809 Nehurvian model of Secularism the term is used here as Nehru tried to force his way of thinking about secularism on Dr.Rajendra Prasad who was also a secular leader but it didn't need to be proved by not going to a temple.
    Even Rajendra Prasad Replied to this by saying he would have visited an opening of the church or a mosque if was invited. Mahatma Gandhi was a great leader of the nation he used to conduct the Hindu prayer in his public meeting does this make him non-secular.
    Trying to define secularism for someone, and not giving him his religious right to worship his own god or faith on the name of his position is it a right thing to do?
    Even when there was no such definition of secularism India was secular but trying to force the definition to which one doesn't agree is a pseudo-secularism.

    "It is hardest thing in the world to be good thinker without being a good self examiner"

  • #619846
    Though I didn't delve deep into Gujarat or the Himachal elections, I do however think that the Gujarat election had less to do with minority appeasement or pseudo-secularism. Had it been so, BJP would have won massively and not by a thin margin, considering that Hindus are the dominant population in the state. From the results, it is apparent that Hindus have en masse voted for the Congress too and not just for the BJP, without bothering for the former's secular or pseudo-secular image.

    This election was more about mud-slinging that both parties indulged in heavily. It was also about casteism, nepotism and corruption. The way caste politics got the better of the voters in Gujarat doesn't bode well for the rest of the country. The Congress too had been opportunistic taking the Patidars and the backward communities for a ride on the name of reservation and other favours. Among all these things, one thing that got a miss was development and improvement in the living standard of the people. One can safely assume that the BJP think tank was quite aware of the fact that development alone cannot win votes. At times, it is real politics that does the trick and the BJP was a shade better than its opponent in utilising the opportunities (The Mani Shankar fiasco and all that).

    There is, however, a good thing about this election. As the election campaign progressed, Rahul Gandhi grew up as a more mature leader. The big fight that he and his party gave to the BJP is good for the democracy. For a strong democracy, a strong opposition is must too. The government can be then kept on its toes and the welfare of the people taken care of. But then we have to see how long he can maintain this tempo. Is he still a reluctant leader/politician or not, we will come to know in eighteen months from now. As for now Gujarat, Himachal and the country seem to be in safe hands.

    Patience and perseverance pays

  • #619852
    Ms. Neelam, you have a valid point about Nehru's opposition to the renovation of Somnath temple and subsequent inauguration of the temple by the then President of India Dr. Rajendra Prasad in his official capacity. At that point of time that was the idea of Nehru about secularism. Due to the trying times after partition, Nehru did not want any problem. Nehru did not object anyone to practice his or her own religion. His objection was the Government's involvement in religious matters. Later Nehru changed his idea and it is evident from the fact that his Government donated lands to the construction of pilgrim center in Sanchi and grants for the restoration of Saranath. Nehru was not against religion. Nehru liked the philosophic aspect of religion but not the sentimentalism and emotionalism about religion. The stance of Nehru was not liked by a section who felt the majority community was at a disadvantage. Are there any other incidents to prove that Nehru tried to force his ideas on the others?
    You are yet to give examples of minority appeasement policies of Congress.

    " Be Good and Do Good "

  • #619853
    #619818: I accept your meaning of secularism. " In India, it was diluted as equal respect to all religions." Parthaji, do you mean to say that all the religions should not be given equal respect? Is it your intention that different religions be treated differently but not equally? I want you to give a straightforward reply to my question.
    " Be Good and Do Good "

  • #619866
    #619852 Although this thread wasn't just about Pandit Nehru trying to force his ideology, however since you have sought an explanation I will answer it.
    How just to prove his secularism correct he forced his ideology and this lead to politics of minority appeasement in our country.
    If it weren't for Pandit Nehru Article 35A and article 370 would have never been existed in Kashmir and never have become a bone of contention.
    Nehru with than Kashmiri Prime minister Sheik Abdullah made passed a presidential order to insert an amendment in the constitution and several provision of the constitution were extended to Jammu and Kashmir. Because they both were aware they can never pass such resolution like article 35 A via majority in parliament thus they bought a presidential order isn't it an example of forced ideology in a democratic nation ( where he should have sought advice of all the parliamentary because a state of country is not anyone's personal property to take decision about it).
    Here I don't intend to disrespect any leader's opinion or ideology but it is just the consequences I feel nation suffered and still suffering because of few ideological differences of great leaders of the nation which can still be improved.

    "It is hardest thing in the world to be good thinker without being a good self examiner"

  • #619883
    As far as the ruling party is concerned this was a defeat, they themselves are indirectly agreeing It, as per reports. There is reduction in the number of seats and some of the leaders are defeated. There is reduction in the voting percentage too. Hence as the ruling party they are to analyse the situation. The opposition is having relatively a better strength too. Hence in the eyes of an outsider this cannot be considered as a victory, but only an allowance (an additional chance giben by the voters) to continue the rule with further modifications.

  • #619913
    The Article 35A and Article 370 are specific to the J&K only. In what way they are affecting the country? These ordinances were passed considering the special conditions in J&K. Part of J&K is under occupation. These articles were introduced not by Nehru alone. The cabinet cleared them which includes Sardar Vallabhai Patel.

    " Be Good and Do Good "

  • #619953
    It has always been difficult to separate politics from religion and have an unbiased view on many issues. This poses a difficult to true politicians and an opportunity for the unethical politicians to cash in on the issues related to the minority. India has always been secular and I think the Gujarat elections were more of a one to one battle against the achievement of Mr.Modi and his government and the allegations by Mr.Rahul Gandhi about the failure of the same programs. Being the top two parties in the country with its top leaders locked in a war of words, others got dragged into the fray. In this election, I think minority appeasement has not been an agenda in Gujarat. The Gujarat elections have been a mixed bag for both parties, BJP winning but with a lesser number of seats in their bag and Congress doing better than what everybody thought.

  • #620576
    I have full reasons to differ with the authour of this thread. In the context of Gujarat elections congress and BJP played the same game. Both played the caste and religious politics. This time there was soft Hindutva from congress and polarisation based hard Hindutva from the BJP. There was no minority appeasement.

    I do not know why Nehru is brought in every now and then. This is a phobia.
    Nehru was right in opposing Rajendra Prasad since Prasad was holding the constitutional post of the President of India.

    Congress was wrong in Shah Bano case. This type of pseudo secularism after Nehru gave a ground to present rise of rightist vandalism and fanaticism. The rise of BJP and RSS are also result of such type of pseudo secularism.

    To me this is not a victory but the defeat of false "vikas" model with only gimmicks. If you see the results, BJP got only 99 seats as compared to 116 seats in 2012 when the PM was the CM of Gujarat. At present the same CM is the PM who had a dream of gaining 150 seats. This dismal performance is after playing all tricks like delaying the announcement of dates of polling, announcing huge bounty of projects including Sardar Dam, Bullet train and many, appointing half of the central government cabinet for campaigning and the long presence of the PM throughout the polling campaign. The campaining basing on religion and falsehood was the main agenda of the PM.

    If you see the social and educational parameters, Gujarat is lagging even after 22 years of continuous rule of the BJP in the state. Please see the rural and urban pattern of voting, BJP got seats only in urban areas. There is a discontent in peasants, youths and backward communities. There is unemployment.

    Since the people of India are secular and cannot be fooled every time on religious basis, we see such results.

  • Sign In to post your comments