Talibanization of Congress – a historic perspective
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0ffee/0ffeec0c8c633c8319dfb6016f7e7aa6b3c01434" alt=""
In the upcoming West Bengal elections INC aligned itself with Indian secular front(ISF). Yes, the same ISF supremo, Abbas Siddiqui, who wanted 50 crore Indians to die from ‘Allah virus’ (COVID 19). I consider this as an epic step of “Talibanization” of INC, which it has been doing under grabs of “SECULARISM”.
Talibanization is synonymous with “Mullah/Maulvi appeasement”
Lets analyze the below aspects
As far as first point is concerned, I would divide the INC history in the below phases.
Early INC days:
After the creation of INC in 1885, the INC was headed by Englishmen, and then by Indians like Bal Gangadhar Tilak. The leaders at this time focused increasing participation of Indians in governance, demands for home rule etc. The question of secularism had not come at this point of time. Hence, this period is not important for this topic.
Gandhian Era:
In the Gandhian era, the question of secularism raised its head. He defined secularism as “sarvadharm samabhava” i.e. “all regions are equal” and tried to be equally close to all religions. However, some of his actions spoke otherwise. For e.g.
I would argue that Talibanization of INC started during this reign. People call this “Appeasement” but I think “Talibanization” is a more appropriate word.
Nehruvian Era:
Nehruji did follow a different principle of secularism. He kept himself equidistant from all religions.
For e.g., he did not attend the inauguration of Somnath temple, not did he attend the inauguration of any mosque or Church. He did not celebrate Diwali, nor did he organize Iftar parties.
Though he did not impose Uniform Civil Code, he ideologically supported it. He passed the Hindu Law Code Bill (amidst fierce opposition from Hindu fanatics).
During this era, we can say that the polity was actually secular. We can call this “Nehruvian Secularism” – aloofness from all religions.
Indira, Sanjay and Rajiv Era:
During this era, the principles of Nehruvian secularism were razed to ground. Lets see how secularism was blown to pieces during this era.
In nutshell, in this era, INC completely discarded its secular credentials and became a party appeasing the Mullahs, Maulvis and Qazis. In this process, INC did not side with the progressive elements of Muslim society, but with the regressive elements who wanted to keep Muslims backward.
Sonia, Rahul and Priyanka Era:
The process set in motion by Indiraji and Rajivji were continued with more vigor. For e.g.
At this point: INC is absolutely not a secular party. It cannot be said to be a Muslim party either, as it is not working to improve the condition of Muslims. It is siding with the radical elements in the Islamic society who want to keep Muslims backward.
Hence, INC has should be called a “Talibani” party.
For e.g. between AIMIM(Owasi) and ISF (Abbas Siddiqui), I find AIMIM more progressive than ISF. AIMIM at least spoke for eliminating Hajj subsidies and spending that money for educating Muslim girls. Whereas, ISF speaks about “Getting independence for his homeland” and “Allah Virus” . INC is not siding with AIMIM, but with ISF.
How far INC will go with this policy. Answer is: Time will tell.
What will be the long term impact of such policy:
In Nutshell, such a policy will be suicidal for INC. INC should go back follow the ideas of “Nehruvian Secularism” in letter and spirit if it wants to revive.
DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text.
3 Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
1) “Hindu fanatics”?? Please replace this oxymoron with ‘concerned Hindus’, ‘awakened Hindus’ or simply Hindus. Please do not add salt to deep wounds that we have suffered and call the resistance of suffering as fanaticism ?
2) INC revival? INC is doing a great a job in self destruction, so let them continue to expose their intentions. They anyways do not take advise from their own employed slave ‘advisors’ – our voice hardly deserve their attention 🙂
3) Post independence, Nehruvian secularism has given rise to or empowered every entity that worked in annihilation of Hindu civilization (as you already rightly pointed out) that has done so much damage.
4) Gandhi unethically gave the keys of democratic rule to Nehru inspite of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel winning public mandate. Duratma is the father of Nehruvian dynasty who think themselves as nation. Nehru awarded himself Bharat Ratna and called Duratma as Bapu.