The Chief Minister’s rather piquant observation, insinuating that the forces who attack and target his government are those wishing to disrupt the communal harmony in the state, merits at least an attempt to figure where he is coming from.
Let us first break down what he actually said during his speech at the 54th Goa Legislators Day function. He asked fellow colleagues, former ministers. MPs and MLAs to guide the government and make suggestions on policies and how to “tackle forces or sections trying to disturb communal peace”.
He then said, “Since liberation, there has been communal harmony in the state. However in the recent past there have been several attempts made to disturb communal harmony. Government functioning is targeted, trying to create some or other controversy”.
If you notice, there is a lot that he has left unsaid, either deliberately or unknowingly. To tackle forces and sections who disturb communal peace, he must first name them, then give evidence of them trying to disturb communal peace and prove that their actions are aimed at disturbing communal peace. This is the Chief Minister of a state speaking, not a roadside gossip monger. Such comments have to be based on tangible evidence. Most importantly, the Chief Minister should have also committed that if forces close to the Sangh Parivar, his party or his government are disrupting communal harmony, the entire might of the state will come down legally on the perpetrators of communal hatred. At the same time he has to ensure that he will not misuse the communal card and target those forces critical of the state and its functioning, falsely.
While he did not say so, it is pretty certain that the Chief Minister was echoing the sentiments of an organisation which has not covered itself with glory- the BBSM. The BBSM’s entire campaign has been against the Church and Catholic institutions for demanding grants for English medium primary schools run by the Archdiocese. However in defence of the demands made by the church schools and articulated by the Forum for the Rights of Children in Education (FORCE), the Archdiocese schools have significant enrolment of children who are not Catholics. They are run like normal education institutions, which do not teach religion. Ask Mr Parsekar to do a fact check on the number of senior BJP leaders who themselves, or their children and family members have, studied in minority institutions.
On the other hand the BBSM and especially some of its members like Arvind Bhatikar and Uday Bhembre, have taken the narrative of the agitation for grants from the domain of education to the domain of the religious communalism. The argument of choice for parents is so potent that not even the Church can box it into a religious frame. All that the leadership of FORCE is guilty of, is not doing enough to articulate or show its intentions of taking it beyond the demand for grants for Church schools and make it an issue if grants for all. But it has said clearly that the need to give parents the choice to pick the medium of instruction, is universal.
The BBSM on the other hand has spewed venom on the Church. Mark Uday Bhembre’s words against Savio Lopes the Convenor of FORCE, “Savio is nobody in Goa in the world of intellects and literary people. He has rushed back from the ship and made a front for the Church. The Church wants to safeguard the interest of its Diocesan Schools and speaks through the Diocesan Schools forum or the Council for Social Justice and Peace and now through its puppet Savio. He’s a front of the Bishop.”
Let us now look at one of the most widely accepted definitions of communalism in the Indian context. According to British scholar Richard C. Lambert, who has given the definition of community according to the conditions prevailing in the country “The word Community is used in India for the unequal social units.” It may be said that communalism is the negative aspect of the community. That is to say, when the people of a particular community care only for their own narrowly concerned interests by disregarding the interests of whole society, then it may be termed as communalism” It is marked by negativity, narrowness, unfair means and disregard to interests of society
Let readers judge from the positions of FORCE and comments of Uday Bhembre of BBSM and figure which of the two fit the definition of communalism.
The CM must realise that criticisms targeted at his government’s functioning have come from Goa across religious divides. When the Regional Plan isn’t finalised, laws are being made to subvert the Regional Plan, TCP and land laws so that companies can run their bulldozers and cut coconut trees, the government will be targeted. This doesn’t divide society, it enriches and sends a message to the CM to get down and work for people and not just investors.
And if he still wants to look for ghosts of communalism, he should look within first.
