Maharashtra goes to the polls today. Many pundits have rued that never before has Maharashtra politics been so polarised. While the validity of this observation is questionable, it would indeed be educative to know why and how some campaigns lead to polarisation.
Maharashtra has been witness to all streams of patriotic polity. From Jyotiba Phule to Lokmanya Tilak, and later from Babasaheb Ambedkar to Veer Savarkar—every other stream of politics inspired by patriotism took shape in this fertile land. K B Hedgewar founded the RSS in this land.
It was a Maharashtrian thinker, Justice M G Ranade, who mooted the idea of Hindi nationalism, openly proclaiming that he himself was neither Muslim nor Hindu. Leaders like Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi and many others made sincere efforts to win the hearts of Muslim leaders, but sustained success on this front eluded almost all of them.
Again, it was Maharashtra that witnessed the atrocities of ‘razakars’ in areas that are now part of Marathwada. Marathi society also actively associated itself with the Goa liberation movement. Besides, two very serious communal conflicts took place in the state in the late 1960s, at Bhiwandi and Jalgaon.
In the last decade of the previous century, it was Mumbai that witnessed riots followed by a series of bomb blasts, to be followed by the infamous 26/11 attack of terrorists in the next decade. One can’t forget that one of the most substantive reformist movements for the Muslim community in India’s modern history was initiated here by Hamid Dalwai, which today has almost died down. Last but not least, it was here that Ambedkar rejected the idea of converting to Islam and embraced Buddhism.
It is with this in the backdrop that one has to look at the discourse around Hindu-Muslim issues that are partly dominating the Maharashtra assembly elections. Many analysts who blame the BJP for polarisation conveniently forget that special treatment to any community amounts to appeasement, and that can later become the mother of further polarisation. To say that the seeds of political polarisation were sown in the pre-independence era would not be an exaggeration—what’s happening now is merely a cycle of actions and reactions.
Long before independence, appeasement had almost become a habit that is today refusing to die. From trouble over the use of ‘Vande Mataram’ and banning cow slaughter, from Article 370 to the uniform civil code, behind every other decision—or the lack of it—the sentiment of Muslims was sought to be coddled, not principles of justice.
In recent times, cleric Maulana Khalil-ur Rahman Sajjad Nomani from Parbhani, Maharashtra made a fervent appeal to Muslims for a ‘vote jihad’ and called for a social boycott of those who wouldn’t join it. Not surprisingly, none from the Marathi thinking world, which is known for progressivism, have condemned such a communal public appeal. With such poisonous statements, it’s hard for others to forget the belligerence of some community leaders. Add to this the mollycoddling by the media, so-called progressive politicians and sections of intelligentsia—and the recipe for polarisation is almost complete.
Political polarisation is not an artificially evolved process. It is the result of various happenings, majorly in domains such as politics, governance and even academia and the world of arts. In this, the more one denies the existence of a wide gulf between different communities’ perspectives of life, polarisation is bound to draw more fuel.
The current central government is deeply conscious of the fact that unchecked vote-bank politics leads to polarisation. The NDA government at the Centre is free from the burden of flawed secularism and hence is moving ahead with an agenda for reforms—the latest of these pertains to waqf properties. Vote-bank politics is again making this process extremely challenging.
The four key factors behind the much-talked-about waqf reforms, mooted through a bill currently being considered by a joint select committee of parliament, are provisions conflicting with the Constitution, vesting sweeping and arbitrary powers with the waqf authorities, inertia and indecisiveness on part of the judiciary and, more importantly, making non-Muslims vulnerable to the whims and fancies of waqf authorities.
First, many provisions of the ill-thought Waqf Act 1995 are in direct conflict with the Constitution. For example, the creation of waqf tribunals goes against constitutional provisions. Similarly, Sections 4 and 5 of the Waqf Act are considered ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution, as no provision has been made for giving public notice and adopting a transparent and fair procedure confirming the principle of natural justice in identifying any property as the waqf’s for inclusion in its list.
Let’s take an example. This may sound hypothetical, but be assured this is something that cannot be rubbished as a figment of somebody’s imagination. If a group of officials working at a local waqf board make the tall claim that the foreground of your home in any such place was used for prayers, worship or similar activities by Muslims, in complete disregard to facts, they may lay claim to the parcel of land.
Another important provision in the new bill is Section 2A. This clause would prevent waqf authorities from claiming historic monuments and heritage sites that are protected by the relevant acts. In view of reports that waqf authorities have tried to claim Raigad fort in Mahad as well as Siddhivinayak temple in Mumbai as waqf properties, this amendment is certainly critical. It will, in effect, prevent land grab by the waqf.
While one can explain the rationale behind the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2024 more elaborately, the importance of it can be summed up in it being a powerful antidote to the politics of appeasement. Remember what L K Advani had told us decades earlier: “Justice for all [can happen only when there is] appeasement of none.”
(Views are personal)
(vinays57@gmail.com)
Vinay Sahasrabuddhe | Senior BJP leader
