Poor Mr. Advani
By Dr. Dawood Khan
Chicago, IL
Wait, the sky’s not falling
!
Mr. L. K. Advani was perhaps caught up in a rush
of emotions: returning to his own birthplace,
getting (of all persons) an invitation to Katas
Raj temples, and being a gracious guest intent
on being a bit too lavish, all in a seductive
environment of easing tensions between long-feuding
neighbors.
Throwing labels around may be a political pastime
but nothing else creates a controversy, or perpetuates
one so created, better than some emotionally-charged
and poorly understood labels, carelessly and extemporaneously
used in complex matters. For his remarks, Mr Advani
is being roundly ridiculed and chastised . He
has been called even a ‘traitor’,
among other things.
On ‘secularism’, Mr. Advani himself
carries a lot of baggage. How secular does he
suppose his own actions and views have been on
a whole range of issues, from Babri Masjid to
the communal riots in Gujrat? From his ‘vantage’
point, ‘secularism’ and ‘secular’
perhaps have a different connation. Secularism,
as we understand it, is, in essence, excluding
religious considerations from public affairs.
It is NOT introducing, promoting or encouraging
such views.
It’s no secret that Pakistan was created
basically on religious grounds – much like
Israel was, for instance. That is nothing new:
several other religious and ethnic groups have
also carved out areas and created independent
countries (Bosnia/Herzegovina, Kosovo, East Timur,
to name just a few recent ones). Mostly ethnic
Republics of the Soviet Union that separated in
1991 to form independent countries represent another
set of not too-dissimilar circumstances and conditions.
The continuing Chechen struggle is a separatist,
religious movement.
There is no question that the bloodshed in the
wake of India’s partition has forever tainted
the land and the people of both countries. The
very nature of Indo-Pak relationship since then
is a clear reminder of how lasting and how deep
those wounds have been. The fact that minorities
have fled Pakistan reflects intolerance, and that
communal riots continue in India, a sad recurring
challenge to tolerance in democracy. The extremists
are not found in just one ethnic group or in only
one country.
Whether or not Jinnah himself was ‘secular’
is again no brainer – at least not for those
familiar with his biography. He was a worldly
(rather than a very religious) person; he may
not have been a strictly observant, practicing
Muslim or bound by Islamic restrictions and traditions
-- if not all his life, but certainly a good part
of it. That would qualify him as ‘secular’.
His own views may once have been ‘secular’
or may even have been professed to be so, notably
when he was not in the throes of trying to create
Pakistan, or after the creation of Pakistan, but
the effort to create Pakistan can hardly be accepted
as ‘secular’.
Being lavish in praise is not without its risks.
There have been cases in the US and elsewhere,
when people, being effusive about someone or something,
have managed to land themselves in trouble by
their own words. A recent case in US Congress
comes to mind: former Senate Majority leader,
Republican Trent Lott, had to resign after his
laudatory comments on the 100th birthday of his
fellow-Republican Senator Strom Thurmond (South
Carolina) that evoked the centenarian’s
segregationist (anti-black) past. By the way,
Thurmond had not only changed his racial stance
since but, as it became public after his death,
he had also fathered a child (now a retired teacher)
with a black woman at a time when he was publicly
known for his strong segregationist philosophy.
There have also been cases of staunch believers
in one political philosophy, who chose to abandon
it and broke major barriers to achieve things
unimaginable. Recall Menachem Begin, an ultra-conservative
Israeli Prime Minister (who had long been a staunch
anti-Arab) and Anwar Sadat (Egypt) shaking hands,
making peace that still holds between their countries.
Another example: Richard Nixon, who for of his
political life was a dyed-in-wool anti-communist,
going to China and establishing relationship that
he had himself refused to allow as a Congressman
and a Vice President.
I am not suggesting that Mr. Advani’s trip
to Pakistan was anywhere near the same league.
There is, however, a history of radical politicians
from one end going clear across the spectrum to
do things on the other end, never expected of
them. Some of them can also achieve goals that
long eluded those who have spent their lifetime
working toward them.
Views change -- must change with reason and for
good reason, a sign of rational growth with the
ever-changing world, very different from carved-in-stone
refusal to learn and modify. Politicians (even
veteran politicians) are people too. They grow
with time; must grow. Maybe most politicians wouldn’t
want to accept this, and certainly Mr. Advani’s
critics don’t seem to (particularly within
his own party —“et tu, Brute!”),
but isn’t Mr. Advani, the religious right,
the nationalist, the ultra-conservative, who has
put himself between the rock and a hard place,
entitled to at least some growth in his view after
all these years ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
