THE LINES ARE CLEAR

 

When the Supreme Court ordered that the SBI should reveal ‘all details of the electoral bonds, including the names of the purchasers, the amounts and the names of those who en-cashed them’,  like a clerk in a panchayath office, the SBI interpreted it to mean only the names of the purchasers, the amounts and the names of those who en-cashed them.  They deliberately did not understand the words, ‘all details of the electoral bonds, including’.  And they did not have the guts to send a representative to the SC for the next hearing.  The ASG Mr. Tushar Mehta repeatedly said ‘I am not representing the SBI’.  So much fear for the ire that the SBI would draw from the first bench of the highest Court for mocking them on their face. The Court had to order specifically that the numbers of the bonds have also got to be revealed. 

In fact, I had felt that even in the previous hearing Mr. Harish Salve had feebly said that the numbers and KYC details were deliberately kept separately so that they cannot be matched.  But nobody seemed to listen or give any significance for that.  He also did not press on that later.  But it appeared to be a very lame excuse; keeping the KYC had absolutely no meaning if they cannot be connected to the bonds, because then there would have been no requirement to obtain them at all.  Thus, even at that time, the SBI was trying to find an excuse not to divulge the bond numbers so that they cannot be directly co-related to the deposits by the parties. 

But even without the numbers coming out, the indications of quid pro quo are quite evident. However, once this co-relation is done, then, all contracts awarded to the parties who had made the deposits, the charges against them investigated but closed or put on back burner, etc should have to be investigated afresh.  But who will do that?  The very beneficiaries of these un-constitutional bonds?

Now, coming to the effect of the revelations of the electoral bonds on the general public:

I find that only those who were already convinced about the illegality of the bonds got it confirmed.  But those who proclaimed that it was a transparent system have gone silent even on why the transparent system failed even the orders of the highest court.  They perhaps meant that it was transparent to the ruling party alone and that is enough, like the other opaque fund created in the name of PM himself, the PM CARES. How can there be a private trust in the name of the PM is a fundamental question these people will not face.  They are not shocked by the revelations of the SBI.  Rather they are only shocked that the Supreme Court suddenly got this courage to dictate to the SBI and the EC, which means the ruling party in government.  They say that the Court should not interfere in administrative matters.  They do not even acknowledge that the highest court is a Court for Constitutional matters.

Therefore, even if they were claiming that the BJP is a party with a difference and that they are in-corruptible, even as legislators were being bought right, left and center, they merely called it an extension of only the political games the Congress played earlier, not that they really believed about the cleanliness of the party.  They still said that their leader was in-corruptible.  Then they said that even Patel took money from the industrialists for the party and even Gandhi stayed (though only for 7 months) in the Birla mandir (forget how he stayed there, why, etc) and that instead of taking money without accounts, taking it through a banking system was always welcome. They are not even bothered about this having been brought as a money bill, that the amendments made for this electoral bond enabled even loss making firms contribute, which means even shell companies could do so and that the Representation of Peoples Act was also amended to the effect that the parties need not reveal the receipt details through these bonds. Great measures to ensure transparency indeed.

These are the very people who did not understand the stupidity (even theoretically) of demonitisation and the lock down announced at a single stroke instead of leaving it to the concerned states to control the epidemic whenever it spreads in the different regions.  They have refused to acknowledge the failures of both these announcements, which were done purely for one person to assert – to exhibit the power to bring lives to a stand-still.

And it is this cult mentality that keeps them bound till date, irrespective of any number of proofs of the weakness of their government (not mentioning of China or the deliberate looking away from Manipur) or the steep corruption involved in by their party.

That their party has amassed wealth on one hand, has got many of their opponents either imprisoned or embroiled in different cases and have withdrawn them if they joined the BJP, on the other hand, has put them on a totally high pedestal (not morally but on monetary terms) – that is, on a totally uneven playing field.  To make the best of this advantage, they would like to go for a ‘One Nation One Election’ so that none of their opponents will have the wherewithal to face them in such an unequal match – at one go.  They have got hold of the full powers to appoint the referee for the match also.  Even the CAG has been caged.

The only impediment has been the highest Court.  To take care of that, they have been propounding a way out of the collegiums system.  Once, that is achieved, the appointments to the Courts also could be done like to any other administrative post and the appointees will be answerable only to the PM. 

It is not that the supporters of the BJP are not aware of any of these.  In fact they are happy about all this.  They are absolutely sure that this PM or anybody who follows him as per the decision of the BJP or the RSS are enough to safe guard their interests.

Now, what are ‘their interests’?

They feel that as Hindus, they did not have enough freedom to propound whatever they wanted in the name of the religion.

Why?

They have propagated and believed that the Congress under the leadership of Nehru and thereafter his family indulged in ‘pseudo secularism’, thereby giving the Muslims and Christians an advantage at the cost of the majority of the Hindus. They have put the blame for the partition on Gandhi and Nehru. 

Before going into the truth about that, one question arises – whether these RSS elements were against partition?  They were not.  In fact, without a Muslim Pakistan coming into being, they could not demand for a Hindustan.

It is quite a fact that after the experience of running the interim Government (before the Independence) along with the Muslim League, both Nehru and Patel were fed up with it and hence felt that a combined Government accommodating the League could not be possible.  Hence, the blame cannot be on Nehru alone. 

Now coming to the role of Gandhi:

All along Gandhi has said that the British should quit and then Independent India can decide on whether a partition was necessary or not.  He said that Britain had no business to indulge in such an exercise which was playing with the fate of the lives of millions, as if it was child’s play. 

The following is the transcript of his letter to Mountbatten written on 8^th May 1947 when he was on a train to Patna:

 (Source : https://www.mkgandhi.org/selectedletters/95viceroy.html )

On the train to Patna,
8th May 1947

DEAR FRIEND,

It strikes me that I should summarize what I said and wanted to say and left unfinished for want of time, at our last Sunday's meeting.

1. Whatever may be said to the contrary, it would be a blunder of first magnitude for the British to be party in any way whatsoever to the division of India. If it has to come, let it come after the British withdrawal, as a result of understanding between the parties or [of] an armed conflict which according to Quaid-i-Azam Jinnah is taboo. Protection of minorities can be guaranteed by establishing a court of arbitration in the event of difference of opinion among contending parties.
2. Meanwhile the Interim Government should be composed either of Congressmen or those whose names the Congress chooses or of Muslim League men or those whom the League chooses. The dual control of today, lacking team work and team spirit, is harmful for the country. The parties exhaust themselves in the effort to retain their seat and to placate you. Want of team spirit demoralizes the Government and imperils the integrity of the services so essential for good and efficient government.
3. Referendum at the stage in the Frontier (or any province for that matter) is a dangerous thing in itself. You have to deal with the material that faces you. In any case nothing should or can be done over Dr Khan Sahib's head as Premier. Note that this paragraph is relevant only if division is at all to be countenanced.
4. I feel sure that partition of the Punjab and Bengal is wrong in every case and a needless irritant for the League. This as well as all innovations can come after the British withdrawal not before, except always for mutual agreement. Whilst the British Power is functioning in India, it must be held principally responsible for the preservation of peace in the country. That machine seems to be cracking under the existing strain which is caused by the raising of various hopes that cannot or must not be fulfilled. These have no place during the remaining thirteen months. This period can be most profitably shortened if the minds of all were focused on the sole task of withdrawal. You and you alone can do it to the exclusion of all other activity so far as the British occupation is concerned.
5. Your task as undisputed master of naval warfare, great as it was, was nothing compared to what you are called to do now. The singlemindedness and clarity that gave you success are much more required in this work.
6. If you are not to leave a legacy of chaos behind, you have to make your choice and leave the government of the whole of India including the States to one party. The Constituent Assembly has to provide for the governance even of that part of India which is not represented by the Muslim League or some States.
7. Non-partition of the Punjab and Bengal does not mean that the minorities in these Provinces are to be neglected. In both the Provinces they are large and powerful enough to arrest and demand attention. If the popular Governments cannot placate them the Governors should during the interregnum actively interfere.
8. The in transmissibility of paramountcy is a vicious doctrine, if it means that they the States can become sovereign and a menace for Independent India. All the power wherever exercised by the British in India must automatically descend to its successor. Thus the people of the States become as much part of Independent India as the people of British India. The present Princes are puppets created or tolerated for the upkeep and prestige of the British power. The unchecked powers exercised by them over their people is probably the worst blot on the British Crown. The Princes under the new regime can exercise only such powers as trustees can and as can be given to them by the Constituent Assembly. It follows that they cannot maintain private armies or arms factories. Such ability and statecraft as they possess must be at the disposal of the Republic and must be used for the good of their people and the people as a whole. I have merely stated what should be done with the States. It is not for me to show in this letter how this can be done.
9. Similarly difficult but not so baffling is the question of the Civil Service. Its members should be taught from now to accommodate themselves to the new regime. They may not be partisans taking sides. The slightest trace of communalism among them should be severely dealt with. The English element in it should know that they owe loyalty to the new regime rather than to the old and therefore to Great Britain. The habit of regarding themselves as rulers and therefore superiors must give place to the spirit of true service of the people.
10. I had a very pleasant two hours and three quarters with Quaid-i-Azam Jinnah on Tuesday last. We talked about the joint statement on non-violence. He was agreeably emphatic over his belief in non-violence. He has reiterated it in the Press statement which was drafted by him.
11. We did talk about Pakistan-cum-partition. I told him that my opposition to Pakistan persisted as before and suggested that in view of his declaration of faith in non-violence he should try to convert his opponents by reasoning with them and not by show of force. He was, however, quite firm that the question of Pakistan was not open to discussion. Logically, for a believer in non-violence, nothing, not even the existence of God could be outside its scope.

Rajkumari Amrit Kaur saw the first eight paragraphs, the purport of which she was to give to Pandit Nehru with whom I was to send you this letter. But, I could not finish it in New Delhi, I finished it on the train. I hope you and Her Excellency are enjoying your hard-earned rest.

Yours sincerely,
M.K. GANDHI

To

H.E. THE VICEROY, SIMLA

In spite of the above documented letter and many more records, there is a wild allegation that Gandhi got the Nation divided to make Nehru the Prime Minister.  Surely, a generation which has not read history can easily be misled by whatsapp universities.

I am following the above by giving some excerpts from ‘Let’s Kill Gandhi’, by Tushar Gandhi, to throw more light in the matter:

    "Gandhi did not have the least doubt that the British would eventually leave, but of late he was worried that what his countrymen would be left holding would be an empty shell that once was a glorious nation.  On the morning of 24 May, as Gandhi boarded the train for Delhi at Patna, he told Dr. Mahmud, “The Congress has practically decided to accept Partition.  But I have been a fighter all my life.  I am going to Delhi to fight a losing battle”. (p 309)  (See the pain in his statement)

    “On 29 May, during his morning walk, a co-worker said to Gandhi: ‘You have declared that you won’t mind if the whole of India is turned into Pakistan by appeal to reason, but not an inch would be yielded to force.  You have stood firm by your declaration.  But is the Working Committee acting on that principle?  They are yielding to force.  You gave us the battel cry of “Quit India”; you fought our battles; but in the hour of decision, I find, you are not in the picture.  You and your ideas have been given the go by’.

    Gandhi replied, ‘Who listens to me today?’ to which the co-worker replied, “The leaders may not, but the people are behind you’.  Gandhi replied, ‘Even they are not.  I am being told to retire to the Himalayas. Everybody is eager to garland my photos and statues.  Nobody really wants to follow me’.

    The co-worker said, ‘They may not today, but they will have to before long’, to which Gandhi replied, ‘What is the good? Who knows, whether I shall then be alive?  The question is: what can we do today?  On the eve of independence, we are as divided as we were united when we were engaged in freedom’s battle.  The prospect of power has demoralized us”. (p 310-311)

    “During his walk on the morning of 3 June, Gandhi asked Rajendra Babu if he might now return to Bihar.  But the latter did not feel he should, as his presence was essential in the capital, ‘if only for Badahah Khan’, cryptically suggesting that the whole process might still degenerate into chaos on the question of the fate of the North-West Frontier Province.

     ‘In all probability’, he said later, the final seal will be set on the partition plan during the day.  But though I may be alone in holding this view, I repeat that the division of India can only do harm to the country’s future.  The slavery of 150 years is going to end, but from the look of things, it does not seem as if independence will last as long.  It hurts me to think that I can see nothing but evil in the Partition plan.  May be that just as God blinded my vision, so that I mistook the non-violence of the weak for true non-violence, He has again stricken me with blindness.  If it should prove to be so, nobody would be happier than I.”  (p – 315) 

          It is very saddening to see that a person who called off the Civil Disobedience movement after the Chauri chaura had only at the fag-end of his life found that the people who acted to be non-violent were actually cowards within – in other words that he had been fooled not by his opponents, but the very ones who called him Bapu and Mahatma.  [“They were the ones, the word went round, with whom business could be done.  The impossible old man was put on a pedestal, admired for his genius and unerring hunch, consulted, listened to with respectful attention and bypassed”. – Pyarelal Nayyar in Mahatma Gandhi: The Last Phase, Vol. 10 Part II]

All along the Congress paid lip service to Gandhi. Now it is the turn of the BJP.  First, it was in the name of ‘Gandhian Socialism’. The present day rulers have decided to renovate the Sabarmathi Ashram. Every now and then, even as Nehru is rubbished, Gandhi’s name is invoked, clearly to pit Gandhi’s name against Nehru. And then to undermine the stature of Gandhi, they try to portray Patel, Lal Bahadur Shastri, Bhagat Singh and Nethaji as the real patriots.  Then simultaneously, they have started to openly celebrate Nathuram Godse – as if he was a patriot and started to slowly introduce their own icon Veer Sarvarkar on par with Patel, Shasthri, Netaji and Bhagat Singh and propagate that things would have been far better if Gandhi and Nehru had not been in the scene.  That Patel and Shastri would have been non-entities but for Gandhi and that Bhagat Singh and Netaji had a difference with Gandhi only like sons have with their father [“It was Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose who had called Ba a martyr first; in his obituary, he accused the colonial administration of murdering Ba to break Gandhi’s spirit” – Let’s Kill Gandhi p- 173] and that definitely they were all not in league with Sarvarkar, is something they do not want others to consider – even if it is so clearly recorded in the history.

Modi ji paying lip service to Gandhi does not suppress the resentment of the RSS or BJP to Gandhian philosophy.  Because, for these people, ‘Ends justify the means’ – just the opposite of what Gandhi stood for.

These people believe that there is no crime in killing (they may call it a sacrifice) an individual to save the family, a family to save a village and a village to save the nation.

And precisely for this, those who are opposed to them as well as their supporters hold the same view – that the BJP and its outfits could have indulged in any atrocities in Gujarat - and they are not repentant about it;  that they may not want to accept before the Court, but they brought down the Babri masjid in a planned way and that the strong armed tactics will be followed as a measure to maintain law and order – in the same manner in every situation – a la a bulldozer raj.

The crown of dadagiri will be worn with a different colour.  What smaller parties have been accused of doing at the level of states or districts, will gain a national status.  But, when states indulge in it, there was the Centre to be looked towards for help and intervention.  ‘When an elephant goes mad, the chain would restrain; what if the chain itself goes mad?’, is a saying in Malayalam.

The lines are therefore drawn – it is not any more regarding corruption or clean public life, since it has been established that BJP is no different from other parties in spite of their tall claims all these years– it is regarding whether we will have the rule of law to abide by, where institutions can discharge their respective functions without fear or favour, or whether we will fall back to being ruled by mobocracy – in the name of religion or individual’s cult.  Because, we know that there never existed a Hindu Rashtra – there were only kingdoms of different sizes by different rulers at different points in time in different places of the country.  Those kingdoms had got buried due to the efflux of time and by the misuse of the positions that their rulers indulged in.  They had fought between themselves and ended up letting in the Muslim invaders and then selling themselves up to the East India Company. 

Hinduism obtained a concrete form only after it was organized by Adi Sankara.  That itself was only an answer to the rude shock the then vedic religion faced after the advent of The Budha.  But even after Sankara, the division of Advaidha, Dvaidha, Vishistadvaidha, remain, not to forget about the non-believers and sects which still are not fully absorbed into the above organized branches. 

Hence, the essence of true Hinduism, whether in its pre-organised form or after its different branches in the organized form, has been assimilation.  This was the greatest proclamation made by Swami Vivekananda to the world.

What Vivekananda, his Guru Sri Ramakrishna and many others like Paramahamsa Yogananda, Ramana Maharshi, Swami Rama, Sri Narayana Guru, the Sai Babas, etc, in the last century have shown is that Hinduism still can assimilate from other faiths.  Hinduism shall survive only by that spirit.  Not by becoming a monotheistic religion where we keep on hearing “One’ for each and every thing. Hinduism allows many, as many as one would want.  And it is only that spirit which holds this country together too.

This cannot be achieved with an attitude of vengeance, a scheming mind or even out of an inferiority complex created out of a perpetual portrayal and assumption of victimhood.  Nor by the continuous chants and war cries of annihilating all the others – faiths, parties or people.

Our future depends upon what we decide now.