Congress debates colour of terror Party dusts Nehru model
The Congress is witnessing a subtle but significant battle between conservatives and radicals who want to revert to the Nehruvian position that majority communalism is more dangerous than minority communalism.
Sources said steering committee members had lengthy — and often heated — exchanges over selection of words while formulating the stand on the recent trend of home-grown terror in its draft political resolution.
The conservatives, led by defence minister A.K. Antony, won the day, insisting that terror had no colour. The draft resolution said extremism and terrorism of every kind and shade was a threat to civilised society.
When party general secretary Digvijay Singh called for a need to express greater anxiety over the rise of radicals in the majority community, he was vetoed.
But Congress insiders said the issue was far from settled. All eyes, they said, were now on AICC general secretary Rahul Gandhi, who is expected to make an intervention tomorrow on the political resolution at the party’s 83rd plenary that began today in Delhi.
The buzz was Pranab Mukherjee, Jairam Ramesh and others working on the political resolution had decided to make a subtle distinction between the “letter” and the “spirit” of the position paper. In other words, between the conservative position and the radical view.
The radical view goes back to Jawaharlal Nehru’s stand that majority communalism was more dangerous than minority fundamentalism.
In the aftermath of Partition, the Congress, led by Nehru, had made a conscious effort to undermine the rise of radical groups in the majority community. Nehru repeatedly told Congress workers that majority communalism was a greater threat to India’s unity.
But gradually, the party leadership, in the context of prevailing circumstances, began equating majority and minority communalism, somewhat diluting what Nehru had warned against.
While the party intends to hover around the known position of denouncing extremism and terror of all kinds in the resolution, Congress insiders say both Sonia Gandhi and Rahul would articulate the “spirit” of the political statement.
According to some sources, the Congress leadership feels the time has come to take a more stringent stand on home-grown terror outfits that reportedly have links with radical political groups in the majority community.
This stand, fraught with uncertainty and political implications, is said to be in keeping with Rahul’s idea of “fine-tuning” Congress ideology.
Both Rahul and Digvijay feel that majority community radicalism needs to be nipped in the bud. Both, sources said, feel that after the Ayodhya verdict, which has been accused of according primacy to faith, there is a real danger of such radicalism gaining ground.
On the political plane, any shift from the conservative approach would be aimed at garnering minority support in Uttar Pradesh and Bengal, where Assembly elections are not too far away.
If Rahul goes ahead and warns of the threat of majority communalism, it would mark a shift from the party’s stand adopted in January 1999 when Sonia had taken over the Congress leadership.
The January 1999 resolution of the Congress Working Committee had articulated the party’s definition of secularism. It said the CWC “endorses” the views of Sonia who, in her speech on the birth anniversary of Swami Vivekananda, had said India was “secular primarily because of Hinduism, both as a philosophy and as a way of life”.
“Ekam Satyam, Viprah Bahudha Vadanti (truth is one, the wise pursue it variously),” Sonia had said, quoting “our ancients”.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1101219/j ... 320018.jsp 
