By Patricia Mukhim
Since May 2014 we are overwhelmed by news from across the country which create a sense of unease. The latest one about Dalits being beaten to death for skinning the carcasses of cows is numbing. All of a sudden these identity markers are sharpening. Then we have a hyperbolic media which is now divided between those suddenly imbued with a nationalistic fervor and others who believe their role is to critique the state’s perverse actions or inaction in areas that it should be seen to be more audible. The Prime Minister believes he can communicate to citizens through a monologic Maan ki Baat. There is a profound unwillingness to engage with the media and answer some unsettling questions on a host of issues. How could a super-confident aspirant to the office of Prime Minister suddenly recoil into a cocoon except when it suits him? These are conflicting messages that Mr Modi is sending. No Prime Minister should be diffident about facing the media, but Modi obviously has a congenital distrust for the fourth estate.
Why has the Hindu identity suddenly become so assertive in these times? Who or what are the Hindus reacting to? Why have Hindu symbols such as the cow suddenly become sacrosanct and political? Where is this country headed? On the one hand we seem to have embraced the neo-liberal economic paradigms which are modeled on western consumerism patterns which constantly push us to believe that “greed is good,” but do not show us the way forward on how to tackle the aftermath of a greedy lifestyle. On the other hand we have people who regularly dig up obscurantist ideas and peddle them around. But they don’t stop there. They castigate “others” who are not in that same league. And then there are diabolical strategists on social media to shut you up whenever you say things that are not in sync with their politics.
Somebody once said that democracy is a peaceful way of settling differences; it replaces physical with verbal diatribes and that these verbal combats are not confined to rational arguments. Gauging at what is happening in the country today and the confounding series of actions from the lynching of Mohammad Akhlaq to others that have strong communal overtones, one is pained to note that democracy has failed us. The prime minister of this country has not taken a definite position on contentious issues. He has shied away from stating upfront what the stand of his government is; he has prevaricated at a time when he should have sent a strong message to the disciples of the RSS and the BJP that India must continue to remain a country of diverse races, communities and religions and that there is no such thing as a Hindutva agenda being carefully orchestrated.
In his book ,‘Hindutva: Exploring the idea of Hindu nationalism,’ Jyotirmaya Sharma says that when the search for a rigid, ossified and regimented Hindu identity manifests as Hindutva and takes on the garb of an inflamed hyper-nationalism , the moment to question pieties and well worn clichés arrives. Sharma studies four thinkers, namely Vivekananda, Dayananda, Aurobindo and Savarkar and believes that the last named followed a path that sought to transform Hinduism into a rigid, codified, monochromatic entity with little scope for diversity of opinions , practices, rituals, observances and individual choices. Sharma lists out six features of Hindutva that Savarkar and his ilk promoted. First, they frowned on myths and legends and local cultures as deviating from the grand ideal. Savarkar’s dream was that the Hindu nation had to be founded on racial and doctrinal unity. Second was Savarkar’s idea of Hinduism as a masculine, aggressive and violent faith and it stemmed from the perception that there was a loss of masculinity of the Hindus affected mainly by the non-violent ethos of Buddhism and Jainism. The third characteristic is that every faith must define its relationship vis-à-vis other faiths. In this third classification the thoughts of all four philosophers seems to have converged. Christianity and Islam were viewed as faiths that combined religion with conquest and therefore it was felt that a militant form of Hinduism was desirable.
The fourth element is that of spreading a sense of victimhood, conspiracy theories and a never ending threat to Hinduism which is equated to nation. The fifth characteristic of this project was to bring theology to an end since the Vedas had answers to every question on modern life, science and technology. The Puranas were rejected as being superstitious and along with it the Bhakti movement. The idea is to recreate a Golden Age by returning to the Vedas. What surprised me most was the sixth and last point of the ideal which was the introduction of invectives, abuse and contempt as part of public discourse. Adversaries to this Hindutva project had to be strictly dealt and there was no place for reason or emotion. Are we not seeing this unfolding before our eyes? What are trolls if not abusive counterpoints to criticism of Mr Modi and his government?
These six features of the Hindutva project are scary to say the least because they are now being boldly unleashed and with greater frequency since May 2014. The signs are unmistakable, although there are many apologists for the present Modi regime. In this frenzied attempt to apply the Hindutva ideals across the country, Dalits and other minorities are facing the rough end of the stick. There are attempts to curtail our culinary rights and to enforce a diet that is alien to the tribal palate. Of course, the justification is that cow slaughter is something that the state should strive to ban is mentioned in the Constitution but when were tribals ever part of the Constitution making body? The only tribal was JJM Nichols Roy and he argued vehemently for greater autonomy in governance for tribals. Little did Nichols Roy imagine that a day would come when the Congress Party would become so effete as to be unable to defend the rights of the minorities except for making some silly noises in parliament.
In one sense therefore, there can be no intellectual progression or free-thinking in this country today. The propensity to remind the nation that every scientific invention was first mentioned in the Vedas makes us look like characters in a science fiction movie. How do we reconcile modern science with myths and selective history? For those who are exposed to liberal education, this attempt to put back the clock is jarring. One is not denying that there are values and truths that are unchanging but when such truths become the spinning wheel on which a political ideology is woven and peddled as the only truth then we have a problem. If obscurantism becomes a bulwark for power then the BJP might find itself quite friendless beyond a point. I would like to believe that the majority of Hindus in this country do not find the Hindutva project of Savarkar interesting enough to embrace because it tends towards exclusivity and cultural arrogance. Large sections of Hindus in this country, including those who voted Narendra Modi in 2014 did so not because of ideological biases but because of his promise for growth and stability. If the NDA Government decides to feverishly push forward its Hindutva agenda then it might not be as popular as it started out to be when it first came to power.
The circumstances then might have also prompted both fence sitters and traditional Congress voters to shift loyalty after suffering ten years of decrepit governance under the UPA-2 Government. That government was virtually on cease- work. There was stasis and dystopia everywhere. The BJP should never forget these extraneous circumstances that pushed the voters to favour the Lotus over the Hand.