What happened in Hubli between January 26, 1992 and August 15, 1994, is a shame which the people of India would like to forget.

Even the most meticulous readers might not remember what happened then. But the non-bailable warrant against Uma Bharti and her resignation bring back the shameful memories.

The Hubli case captured simply is this. The dispute is about a public ground that originally belonged to the Basil Mission of Switzerland. The Hubli-Dharwad municipality acquired it for public purposes. This ground was also known as the Kittur Rani Chennamma Maidan. Anjuman-e-Islam, an Islamist outfit, had filed a case claiming that the maidan had been leased to it from 1930 for 999 years for religious worship. It lost the case all the way from the munsif court to the district court and the High Court. All three courts dismissed the Anjuman case and held that it was a public place. The courts permitted the use of the place for prayers by Muslims twice a year, but ordered the demolition of the structure put up by Anjuman. Anjuman appealed to the Supreme Court. The SC first refused to grant leave to appeal. But Anjuman said its structure would go. So the SC stayed the demolition. However, it left the High Court's decision that the ground was a public place and that Anjuman could offer prayers twice, just twice a year, undisturbed. These legal cases started in 1973 and went on till 1992. The ground is being used for selling vegetables, for jatras and for holding public meetings.

On January 26, 1992, the Republic Day, the citizens of Hubli decided to hoist the national flag. But Bangarappa, Karnataka Chief Minister then, ordered the police to thwart anyone from hoisting the national flag. Reason, it would hurt the religious feelings of the minorities! The police thwarted all attempts. From then on it became an issue. Most people in the country may not be aware that in 1971 Indira Gandhi had passed a law to punish anyone preventing the hoisting of the national flag on Republic and Independence days with imprisonment for three years. But the government instead of enforcing the right to hoist the national flag actually prevented the national flag from being hoisted. From January 26, 1992, on every Republic Day and Independence Day attempts would be made to hoist the national flag at the maidan, the Muslims would object and the government would prevent them. It was then that on August 15, 1994, Uma Bharti sneaked into the maidan at Hubli, defied prohibitory orders and hoisted the national flag. Afterwards criminals rioted. There was curfew. Not the criminals, but Uma was charged with inciting the criminals and murder.

Subsequent developments proved Uma right. Deendar Anjuman, an off-shoot of Anjuman-e-Islam, was found to be a violent organisation, linked to SIMI, a banned Islamist outfit. It was charged with bombing and torching churches in Andhra and in Karnataka to foment Hindu-Christian clashes and to defame India at the global level. Also a settlement was reached at Hubli permitting the State government to hoist the national flag at the maidan on Republic Day and Independence Day. But the state government is not hoisting the national flag lest it would hurt the religious sentiments of minorities. The Karnataka Government also confessed to the court that it did not have evidence to prove the case against Uma Bharti and wanted the case closed. As late as June 2004, the Dharam Singh Government also reiterated this plea. But once the Sibu Soren and Taslimuddin cases erupted, the Karnataka government withdrew its application to close the case, a clear political counter blast. This activated the case against Uma Bharti.

For hoisting the national flag in a public place, declared as such, Uma Bharti stands charged with crime.

But by preventing the national flag from being hoisted the State Government claims to have served the cause of secularism.

The Islamic extremists who caused riots are not the offenders. Nor is the government which prevented the national flag being hoisted.

But Uma Bharti who hoisted the national flag is the offender.

This is not just being `pseudo-secular'. It means promoting a dangerous trend among minorities, a trend that led to partition in 1947.

Courtesy: www.newindpress.com, May 11, 2008