58 SOCIAL SCIENTIST an inexplicable permutation of logic we are first told that the Bill is good for Muslim women. And of course the Muslim community wants it. This the government knows but how they arrived at such a conclusion is a not for the public to know. And therefore government instead of giving the process of reform a push chooses to put a brake on it. All in the name of secularism. Why ? Claims of superiority of the Hindu community based on the Hindu Code Bill of 1956, whether on the matter of marriage or divorce or inheritance are of course highly debatable. But why make blatantly false, historically inaccurate, and sectarian statements ? Was this a feeler to the articulate section of the Hindu community ? A suggestion too that the Bill was in the best interest of the Hindu community ? Is it therefore that K.C. Pant made the following remark : "Is it worth the game just for the sake of pressing a political point of view, to risk arousing passions in this country at a time when we need the unity and solidarity of every community ia this country ?" Does this not mean that were it not for such a Bill the prospects of getting the support of the Muslims for defending the unity and integrity of the country would be jeopardised ! In other words the Muslim community's commitment to the country is incumbent on the concessions made to them at this sensitive juncture in the country's history. And any opposition to such concessions meant that the opponents were playing with fire and provoking the Muslim community. What image, what impression do all these arguments leave behind ? What excites passions, and revives distorted atavistic memories ? Is it not the image of a recalcitrant minority bent on keeping itself different, aggressively demanding concessions even when it is being pampered, eroding from within the process of consolidation of a Pan-Indian identity ? I would argue that this is not far fetched if placed in a broader perspective : the need to fill the ideological vacuum for the ruling party ; the party's efforts under Indira Gandhi to make symbolic and substantial gestures towards articulate sections of Hindus ; the need to cover selling of tlic country to the imperialists through the hyperbole of reviving religio-cultural heritage ; the not so subtle feelers to leaders of fanatic Hindu militant groups, the latest being a meeting on July 16 called by the Prime Minister with leaders of "Dharma Raksha Samiti" including Jagatguru Sankaracharya ofDwaraka-pith, working president of Vishwa Hindu Parishad, general secretary of Sanatana Dharma Pradinidhi Sabha the etc. (This meeting was the lead news for full three minutes on the 8.40 p.m. TV news). Surely these are not isolated, sporadic or incidental. GAUTAM NOVLAKHA Assistant Editor, Economic and Political Weekly, Bombay