NEW DELHI: When India gained independence from Britain 46 years ago, it enshrined secularism and tolerance in its constitution and spurned the idea of identifying itself as a Hindu country, emphasizing economic and social progress.

Now, after a month and a half of section an violence that followed the destruction of a 16thcentury mosque by Hindu militants, many of India’s Hindus are confronting their religious and cultural identity more starkly than they have at any time since independence, and some have advanced the view that Hindu values need to be defended and propagated, by violence if necessary.

With more power and autonym than many Indians thought possible, many Hindu religious and political organizations have stepped forward, demanding the leadership of India.

Some of their objectives remain unfocused, but it is clear that the India they envision would be very different from the one that exists now.

Under the Bharatiya Janata Party, the main Opposition to the governing Congress Party, India would move swiftly to build nuclear weapons, ban much foreign investment and vigorously promote a sense of Hindu accomplishments in religion, education and culture.

After the demolition of the mosque in the northern town of Ayodhya, six weeks of violence engendered or encouraged by the party’s more extreme members and supporters left nearly 3,000 people dead, including more than S00 in Bombay this month.

Despite this, the Bharatiya Janata Party is convinced that it has captured the hearts and minds of a majority of the country’s 726 million Hindus, who make up 83% of the population.

The Bharatiya Janata Party has said it will conduct a campaign of demonstrations, sinkes and disruptions of government in an effort to force elections three years before they are scheduled.

Now, for the first time, the party is thinking sinuously about how it would govern India. Foremost among its intentions is to deploy nuclear weapons.

“We should go nuclear and sign NPT as a nuclear weapons state,” said Malkani, referring to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. The whole world will recognizes by our power.” The party’s nuclear policy seems driven by two goals: to rule sabers with Pakistan, which is thought by Western intelligence agencies to have nuclear weapons, and to overcome what it sees discrimination by the West.

“If England and France can have it, why not we?” said Malkani. “We don’t want to be blackmailed and waited as Oriental blackies. Nuclear weapons will give us prestige, power, standing. An Indian will” talk straight and walk straight when we have the bomb.”

The party’s nuclear policy would be an integral element of an uncompromising stance toward Pakistan, with which In has fought three wars, two of them over Kashmir.

“We are going to have an aggressive defensive posture,” said Malkani. “They have ~ the bomb. We are going to say: “Look, you care not going to get Kashmir. If you want to ~ fight, let’s do it”

“Foreign companies can come in if they bring technology and capital only in those areas we do not have technology,” said Jay Dubashi, who has drawn up the party’s economic agenda. “We want them in high-tech areas: oil exploration, modem urban transportation. But for example, Kellogg’s is coming in to manufacture breakfast foods that is something we don ‘like at all Coca Coal and Pepsi are things we can do with. Out.” In the area of social policies, Malkani said  education is “not really relevant to the Indian conditions.” India has 50% illiteracy Tate.

.”A farmer, whether he can we his name  is Not important,” Malkani said. “He does not have to correspond with anyone. Edpcabon is not cnicial for the Indian economy.” “The Muslim population is growing faster, and Hindus feel uncomfortable about it,” he said. “Muslims should be encouraged to practice family planning.” There are about 120 million Muslims in India, about 14% of the population.

But among Hindus, he said, birth control is practiced by the wrong people. “The so-called better off classes practice family planning,” he explained. “The so-called lower classes don’t. This means a deterioration of the population “his New York Times Sunday Jan. 24, 1993.

Article extracted from this publication >>  January 29, 1993