Parliamentary Debate on Places of Worship Act – Part II (Shri Guman Mal Lodha)

Continuing our series on the speeches made against the Places of Worship Act at the time of its introduction in the Parliament, the speech made by Pali MP Shri Guman Mal Lodha is shared here.

Shri Guman Mal Lodha was a freedom fighter who rose up the ranks in active politics during the 1960s. He served as the President of Rajasthan state unit of Bharatiya Jana Sangh from 1969-71 and was the leader of Jana Sangh Legislature Party in Rajasthan Assembly between 1972-77. He retired from active politics after the dissolution of Jana Sangh in 1977 and entered the judiciary as a judge of Rajasthan High Court in 1978. He was later appointed as the Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court in 1988. After his retirement from the judiciary, he returned to politics and was elected thrice as a BJP MP from Pali between 1989 to 1998. The speech made by Shri Guman Mal Lodha is as follows: 

“Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose this Bill. It is a black law. Sir, the speeches delivered in the house so far were more of sermons, miles away from reality and the facts of history.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to apprise you of the reality – how our leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and others tried their best to keep the people of this country united and also to restore the common cultural heritage in order to achieve the objective of integration of this country in the same way as Shri Aiyar and Shri Azad tried to do today through their impressive speeches. Mahatma Gandhi sacrificed the major part of his life for this cause. But what was the outcome? When Mahatma Gandhi went to attend the Round Table Conference, Jinnah Sahib stood up and said:

“Mr. Gandhi, you do not represent India, you are the Hindu leader. You represent Hindus only.”

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, we must not forget that black day when Pakistan was formed, blood was shed and innumerable people were killed. Today, the leftist parties say that India has a common culture. I would like to submit to them.

SHRI B. VIJAYA KUMAR RAJU (Narsapur): I am not a leftist.

SHRI GUMAN MAL LODHA (Pali): I am not talking about you. I was talking about Shri Somnath Chatterjee and Indrajit Gupta.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It was a pleasant surprise for all. He spoke in Telugu.

SHRI GUMAN LAL LODHA (Pali): Those who say today that we have a common culture, they had been saying in the past that Muslims had the right of self-determination. These people are to be blamed for the partition of the country and the bloodshed that followed. It was they who supported Shri Jinnah’s demand for the right of self-determination leading to the creation of Pakistan. The same people are trying to show the path to us. At that time they supported Shri Jinnah’s two-nation theory.

SHRI BASU DEB ACHARIA (Bankura): It is totally false

SHRI GUMAN MAL LODHA (Pali): I do not yield. It is on record of partition History that communists supported Pakistan’s two-nation theory on the rationale of the right of self-determination. The people, who supported the demand of the right of self-determination and opposed patriots like Subhas Chandra Bose by calling him an agent of Nazis & Fascists and a traitor, are trying to teach nationalism today. USSR has disintegrated and the theory of Communism has been rejected.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, Shri Aiyar delivered a very sentimental speech. He referred to the theory of dualism. I can also speak about the theory of monopsychism and pluralism. But I would like to speak about what exists in reality. People like him have been guiding Shri Rajiv Gandhi, Shrimati Indira Gandhi and others till yesterday. What guidance did they give? The guidance was that whatever advice they tender is according to the Constitution of India. One thing is very strange in the Constitution. I would like to submit to those Hon. Members of the House who tend to plead a case in favour of secularism in and outside the House that most of the hon. Members present here would be ignorant of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir adopted by the Lok Sabha. The proviso made in that regard states that in the Preamble, in the first paragraph, the words “Socialist Secular” should be deleted and in the penultimate paragraph, the word “Integrity” must be omitted.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is very significant to note that the Constitution of Kashmir does not favour secularism. `Secularism’ was removed from the Constitution of Kashmir. When Shri Rajiv Gandhi paid a visit there, people raised slogans-

“You Indian dogs, go home.“

They omitted the unity and integrity of the country from the constitution for the sake of Kashmir. Today, Shri. Ghulam Nabi Azad was very enthusiastic while delivering his speech; rather he became poetic. However, his own State Kashmir has become the place of communal activities. But it is the Congress Party which is to be blamed for committing this crime to encourage communalism. I would like to know from the Leftists as to why they did not propose any amendment for inserting the provision of secularism in the Constitution of Kashmir. 

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, most of the hon.Members are ignorant of the fact that the word `Secularism’ which finds place in the preamble to the Constitution of India has been omitted in the Constitution of Kashmir, even the word `integrity’ has also been removed from it to enable the Kashmiris to do what they like. When Shri Rajiv Gandhi went there, slogans like “you Indian dog, go back” were raised. He tolerated this indecent attitude of those people. Today we are asked to learn to tolerate the disgrace, our forefathers had to face years ago. We cannot tolerate it. An awakened nation, a living nation can never tolerate the insult of their forefathers or the history of their country.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to submit that once there was a proposal for the reconstruction of Somnath temple. I do not know whether Shri Aiyar and Shri Gulam Nabi Azad of the Congress Party were in politics at that time or not, but had they been in politics, they would certainly have gone on hunger strike to oppose the proposal.

The Resolution for the reconstruction of Somnath temple, which was destroyed by the Muslim rulers, was passed by the Cabinet and the Hon. President Dr. Rajendra Prasad went there to lay the foundation stone and a function was organised on a large scale to celebrate the occasion.

What happened to the composite culture at that time?

Gadgil wrote: “On Nov. 1, 1947, Sardar and I went to Somnath, the temple destroyed by Muslims centuries ago. I announced GOI’s decision to rebuild the temple. Late Vallabhbhai made a similar announcement“

SHRI MANI SHANKAR AIYAR (Mayiladuthurai): No mosque was there …

SHRI GUMAN MAL LODHA (Pali): Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, he is ignorant of what happened. In 1951, the `mazaar’ was removed to raise the temple. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, he is trying to falsify what Shri Rejendra Prasad did. Pandit Nehru never considered it essential to introduce any law for the purpose. He was a great leader; he was the only person who could propagate secularism. Shrimati Indira Gandhi too did not consider it essential to enact any law for this purpose.

I would like to submit that history bears testimony to the fact that in 1946-47 when communal riots between Hindu and Muslims took place on an unprecedented scale, copious blood was shed; women were disgraced and the slogan `Pakistan Zindabad’ was tattooed on their nude bodies; they were raped. Congress Members pretend to be ignorant of all that happened as if they were born afterwards and as if they did not read history. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is one thing to preach but it is another thing to practise it. Shri Aiyar was the Chief Adviser at the time when the election manifesto of the Congress Party was issued in Mizoram. The manifesto stated that the administration in Mizoram would function as per the tenets of Christianity. At that time they forgot that poverty prevails in the country and a lot of development has yet to be made, that roads have to be constructed and electricity has to be made available in remote areas. At the time of elections, they did not bother about these things; rather they encouraged religious fanaticism to fetch votes, and today they are teaching us. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, a meeting was organised at Delhi Bar Room. I asked Shri Asoke Sen, who was the then Minister of law, as to why issues related to religion were raised in the meeting of advocates despite the Government’s claim that religion should not be brought into politics, that secularism should be restored in the country, and the Congress party has been committed to it. I would like to know from you as to why the then Minister of Law Shri Shiv Shanker led about one lakh Muslims in Byculla in Bombay to challenge the verdict of Supreme Court and burnt an effigy of Justice Chandrachud? Why was all this done? Because these people thought that Muslim votes would be lost if the verdict in regard to Shahbano case went in her favour. What was that case? It was a case filed by Shahbano to seek the help of the Supreme Court to get maintenance allowance from her husband whom she had been divorced from. Only one of the Muslim Members of the Congress Party opposed it;, today I would like to thank that member, Shri Arif Mohammad Khan, the Member of the Ninth Lok Sabha, who had opposed it. But he was alone and as such his voice drowned in the din. 

The Congress Party was worried about Muslim votes. Shri Arif Mohammad is not in the House today. I admit that we got him defeated. He was refused Congress ticket in the by-election at the instance of Shri Vishwanath Pratap Singh and persons like Syed Shahabuddin who were closely related to Haji Mastan were given the tickets merely to get Muslim support. Shri Arif Mohammad Khan is a secular Muslim in the real sense whereas Shri Shahabuddin is a person who formed Action Committee to oppose the unlocking of Ayodhya Shrine and observed black day on 26th January. 

SHRI RABI RAY (Kendrapara): Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank Shri Lodha that during his speech, he has talked about unity and integrity which is a very vital issue. It is our duty to maintain the unity and integrity of our country. I would like to tell him and the House that in the Indian National Army, which was formed by Netaji Subhash Chand Bose, there were three leaders with him. They were Dhallan, Sehgal and Shahnabaz Khan. Bahadurshah Zafar was also accepted as a leader by this country.

When Shri Lodha has so high esteem for Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, he should accept Bahadurshah Zafar also as the symbol of nationalism who had once represented our country against English People. I think that it will be good for the House and for the integrity of the country if we remember all these leaders when we remember Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.

SHRI GUMAN MAL LODHA(Pali): Mr.Deputy Speaker,Sir, in view of the opinion expressed by the hon.Member Shri Rabi Ray, I would like to submit that Shahnawaz Khan along with so many other soldiers belonging to different religions were in the Indian National Army formed by Shri Subhash Chandra Bose. There was no discrimination on the ground of religion in the freedom struggle fought by Subhash Chandra Bose. We want to follow the path shown by him. The hon. Member might be knowing that Shri Sikander Bakht who is a leader of our party in Rajya Sabha, belongs to the Muslim community. We have Mohammadan Ministers in UP and Rajasthan.

Sir, Bahadur Shah Zafar was a revolutionary leader of this country. When he has kept in prison at Rangoon, he wrote a poem “Do Gaz Jamin Na Mil Saki” which was very popular of all his poems. He was buried at Rangoon. We sing it often. 

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, Shri Gulam Nabi Azad is also present here. I would like to ask him why these words secularism, socialism and integrity have been deleted from the constitution in regard to Kashmir. A long time has passed since Kashmir had merged with India and today we are in 1991. A lot of big speeches were given here, but Mani Shanker Aiyer never got the courage to tell Shrimati Indira Gandhi that the word secularism should be incorporated in the Constitution of Kashmir. I would resign if my statement is proved wrong that the words “Secularism” and “Integrity” have been omitted from the constitution of Kashmir. You teach us? You say that you will crush us? How would you crush us? When Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee was the Member of this House, Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru had said:

“I would crush you.”

Then Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee had replied:

“I would crush the crushing mentality of the Prime Minister.”

And I would like to submit to them also that I will not crush them, but as they have been crushing the true nationality of the country for the last forty years, people would crush them and it has already been demonstrated by the people.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to submit that I am not the only person to say so. Shri Gadgil, who was once Minister in Nehru’s cabinet, has also said in a book written by him entitled “Government from Inside”. I would read a quotation from it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which Gadgil you are talking about?

SHRI GUMAN MAL LODHA (Pali): He is the same person who had been a Minister here and his son was also an M.P. in the last Lok Sabha, but who is not in the present Lok Sabha.

SHRI MANI SHANKAR AIYAR (Mayiladuthurai): You should also tell that Shri Nehru had thrown out Shri Gadgil from his Cabinet. 

SHRI PHOOL CHAND VERMA (Shajapur): He is now going to tell you as to why he was thrown out

SHRI GUMAN MAL LODHA (Pali): Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, he has written:- 

“I have already described how systematically Pakistan drove out its Hindus and how they encouraged Bengali Muslims to enter and occupy some areas in Assam. The Indian Government took no notice of these. On the other hand, Nehru was greatly annoyed when once.“

This is very important.

You are trying to teach us. But one must first know himself before attacking others. Do you know as to what Shri Vallabh Bhai Patel had said?

“Vallabhbhai suggested mutual exchange of Hindu and Muslim populations and a propotional division of land between India and Pakistan.”

SHRI MANI SHANKAR AIYAR (Mayiladuthurai):**

PROF. PREM DHUMAL (Hamirpur): A person who was awarded Bharat Ratna is being called by them as**. They should be ashamed of uttering such words.

SHRI PHOOL CHAND VERMA (Shajapur): Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have a point of order, please listen to my point of order first.

SHRI KALKA DAS (Karol Bagh): These people are using the word ** against a person whose efforts brought them to power.

SHRI PHOOL CHAND VERMA (Shajapur): Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, my point of order is that an hon’ble Member of Congress Party has used the word ** against a person who was honoured with the highest award of Bharat Ratna. I am on a point of order as to how far it is appropriate. I want your ruling in this regard.

SHRI RAM NAIK (Bombay North): Earlier some references were made to Rajiv Gandhi. Then it was suggested from that side that references to Rajiv Gandhi should not be made, they should be deleted. Now, how a Member from that side gets up and says ** to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patelji, to whom the title of Bharat Ratna has very recently been awarded by the Government?

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Suppose that word is not in conformity with the parliamentary system of democracy. I shall expunge that word.

SHRI KALKA DAS (Karol Bagh): They are here due to the efforts made by him.

SHRI PHOOL CHAND VERMA (Shajapur): Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I request you to ask the hon’ble Member to apologise for using foul words against a great man like Sardar Patel, Therefore, through you, he should apologise.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have already given my Ruling on that.

SHRI PHOOL CHAND VERMA (Shajapur): If he does not apologise to the House, he should be expelled from the House. Such a Member has no right to sit in the House.

You must expel him from the House. Either the Minister for Parliamentary Affairs should apologise on his behalf or he should be expelled from the House. He has used insulting words for a great patriotic leader.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have already given a Ruling. If that word is unparliamentary and if it is not befitting the parliamentary procedure of this House, that word would be expunged. I have already told that. Let us proceed further.

SHRI GUMAN MAL LODHA (Pali): I abide by your direction. He was honoured with the award of Bharat Ratna.

SHRI SHIVENDRA BAHADUR SINGH (Rajnandgaon): Sir, I am on a point of order. I would like to know the authenticity of the book from which he is quoting or reading his own concocted version of the book which is brought here. Has he taken permission from the chair for this?

SHRI GUMAN MAL LODHA (Pali): It is from the library of the Lok Sabha.

SHRI MANI SHANKAR AIYAR (Mayiladuthurai): Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, I am on a point of order, I wish it to be clarified.

SHRI GUMAN MAL LODHA (Pali): I am not yielding.

SHRI MANI SHANKAR AIYAR (Mayiladuthurai): I am on a point of order, I am not responding to you.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: One minute. Our hon. Member has raised a point of order stating whether it is a concocted book or a book with authority. So, I give the Ruling. He is a responsible hon. Member of this house, definitely he brings to the House a book which is really worth mentioning here and he has told the name of the author of the book also. Therefore, I over-rule that.

SHRI MANI SHANKAR AIYAR (Mayiladuthurai): My point of order is that what Mr. Guman Mal Lodha is reading in the House is not what Sardar said, but what Mr. Gadgil claims Sardar said.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Okay. All right.

SHRI GUMAN MAL LODHA (Pali): Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have quoted from the book written by Shri N.V. Gadgil entitled “Government from Inside” published by Meenakshi Prakashan Meerut. I have got it issued from Parliament library itself and its number is 72847. You may please note that all this is written on Page 84 of this Book. Shri Gadgil’s comments are also given in the book.

“But one has to confess that such an exchange would have been beneficial in the long run. We are a secular country and our faith in secularism is fundamental, but that too must be tempered by hard realities of the situation. The British treated the Muslims as a favourite wife. And we overlooked many of their transgressions because they were a minority. Our difficulties today spring from this weakness.”

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to tell you that this is written by Gadgil. They could forget Mahatma Gandhi, Jawahar Lal Nehru and even Indira Gandhi. Today the financial situation is that the entire policy has been reversed. My plea is that it was Gadgil’s feelings that they are not treated as equal citizens, rather an appeasement policy is adopted for them. That is why it is written here.

“And we overlooked many of their transgressions because they were a minority. Our difficulties today spring from this weakness. We feared that a stern treatment of Muslims in India would recoil adversely on Hindus in Pakistan.” 

As a result West Pakistan became a land without a single Hindu and of the 20 million Hindus in East Pakistan only about a half still remain. In contrast migration of Muslims from India to Pakistan after 1949 was negligible.

Just now an honourable member had mentioned what would happen in Bangladesh. I would like to tell you what is happening there. Today, if any Hindu dies in a Muslim country, he is not allowed to be cremated with Hindu rites. The situation is that when anybody goes to take food during the time of `Roza’, he is whipped. The Hindus are not allowed to eat; they are not allowed to burn the dead bodies and here we are talking like that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to point out one thing about the present bill moved in this House. Indian Muslims are mostly used for maintaining a vote bank by vested interests because of their illiteracy. There is already a law regarding the trespassing of property and according to that law no notice is taken if the claim of any property having trespassed is submitted after 12 years. 

Mr. Deputy Speaker Sir, how did it benefit the Muslims. They did in fact, get nothing beyond being misguided. The way V.P. Singh and the men of Rajiv Gandhi run after the Imam of Jama Masjid and entreat before him for the Muslim votes, it is only a strategy for getting Muslim votes and this Bill has been brought here to appease the Muslims. Otherwise, this is the law of our nation that no one could dare trespass against others. I would also like to state that the Ram Janam Bhoomi issue, as well as other similar issues, can not be resolved by the national laws; these can be resolved with the help of international laws. Now the name of Lenin Grad is being changed.  

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to state when some change at the international level takes place, nobody can do anything. Today the name of Lenin Grad is being changed and the Communists are helpless to interfere in the matter. The status of Lenin has been reduced. All the States in Russia have become independent and the Russian Communists do not talk of composite culture and Russian Unity.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, this law is an illusory law and it is full of confusion. It is not going to benefit either Hindu or Muslim. That is why Hindus and Muslims both must oppose this Bill. That is all. Thank you.”