In a meeting held on Saturday (January 13) in Karnataka, he advocated the razing of several mosques, which, according to him, were built over the “demolished” Hindu temples. Former Union Minister for State for Skill Development and Entrepreneurship made an unsubstantiated historical claim that a large number of Hindu temples were destroyed in the medieval period under the Muslim rulers.
Having cited the excuse of temple desecration, he exhorted the public to take revenge on the Muslim minority: “Revenge, revenge, revenge…if we do not take revenge for the 1000 years, then the Hindu community can clearly say that ours is not Hindu blood”, according to a report in The Indian Express (January 15).
Amid the build-up to the Ayodhya event, Hegde, a Member of Parliament (MP) from Uttara Kannada constituency, listed several mosques, which, according to him, were constructed over the Hindu temples. He went on to locate these mosques in areas across Bhatkal, Uttar Kannada and Mandya.
Note that Hegde’s highly inflammatory speech, aimed at polarising voters on religious grounds, used the symbols of the “subjugated” majority Hindu community at the hands of “foreign” Muslim rulers. Moreover, the invocation of the image of “Hindu blood” is purposefully used to whip up an emotion of hate among the majority community against the minority community. Worse still, during his speech, Hegde raked up the issue of the history of violence inflicted on the native Hindu population by the alien Muslim aggressors.
During the Ayodhya agitation, the justification for the demolition of the sixteenth-century Babri Masjid was based on the same trope of the restitution of the historical wrongs committed by the Muslim rulers. The Hindutva narrative claimed that the commander of Mughal ruler Babar, Mir Baqi, demolished the Ram Temple and built Babri Masjid over it.
Neither does the historical fact uphold the Hindu Right’s claim nor was it proven the Supreme Court (final judgement). Taking the wind out of Hindutva’s sail, the Court condemned the demolition of the Babri Masjid as an act of “an egregious violation of the rule of law”. It is another matter that the decision of the Supreme Court was influenced by the concern to respect the popular faith (Aastha), which hugely disappointed large sections of Indians, democratic-minded people.
While the historical facts point to dynamism during the pre-modern era, Hegde presented a stagnant picture of the one thousand years of medieval India during which only a singular narrative of “Hindu oppression” under Muslim rulers is/was presented. Even Prime Minister Narendra Modi referred to this, “one thousand years of slavery” in his first/early speech in Parliament and indirectly demonised the medieval period. Ironically, much of the Hindu Right’s understanding of the medieval past is based on colonial historiography.
However, historical facts do not uphold Hindutva’s claims of Hindu oppression by Muslim rulers. Nor do they support the idea of the demolition of the temples in large numbers during the medieval period. Historians largely agree that the long period of the medieval period was complex. The period saw different levels of material advancements across the subcontinent. Therefore, it is also wrong to equate the medieval period with Muslims and then call it a “dark” period, when the so-called “glorious” Hindu civilisation “declined”.
Much beyond communal narratives, the medieval period was an era of the emergence of syncretic Hindu-Muslim culture when literature, music and architecture flourished, reflecting Hindu-Muslim composite styles. During the medieval period, vernacular languages developed under the influence of Persian and Sanskrit. Even the religious and reform movements, questioning the caste system, subjugation of women and the orthodoxy in society, were influenced by both Hinduism and Islam. Moreover, the ideals of equality and fraternity enshrined in Islam appealed to the plebians and their quest for equality and dignity got a new momentum.
The rulers of Delhi and Mughal Sultanates were indeed Muslims in faith, but their rules were more constrained by the ground reality. The canons of Islam as interpreted by the Ulama were largely paid lip service to by the rulers, not rigidly implemented. The BJP and the parent, Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS) are not willing to accept the truth that the so-called Muslim rule could not have lasted even a day if this had not been assisted by non-Muslim elites.
On the dark side, the peasantry and workers, both Hindus and Muslims suffered under the burden of taxes in the medieval periods. Both Muslim and Hindu rulers were united in exploiting their labours. When the subalterns revolted against the unjust taxation, they were not waging a religious war but fighting for their rights.
While the Hindu Right is fond of exaggerating the political fights between Hindu and Muslim rulers, they are silent about the wars fought among Muslim rulers for political powers. Similarly, the BJP and the RSS narrative has failed to explain why the Hindu kings sought support from Muslim rulers to defeat their rival Hindu rajas and Sikh Gurus.
Given the complex nature of medieval Indian history, it is wrong to overlook its dynamic nature and complexity. Similarly, one should never try to reduce the events to mere religious conflict. Such a communal approach to history has done much damage to national integration and communal harmony. We, therefore, must counter them with historical facts and logic.
That is why the better way to look at history is to take up social and economic dimensions and even try to find the economic and social expiations of the so-called religious wars. The secular approach to history writing can only hold a secular republic together, a fact often ignored by the BJP and the RSS for their achieving their narrow political agendas.
Instead of taking a social and economic framework, Hedge and his organisations are prone to look at Indian history from a narrow and sectarian religious lance. They do it deliberately to prove the narrative of the “intolerance” practised by the Muslim rulers to justify the Muslim oppression in the present era. Such a divisive mindset influenced Hedge to give an open threat to the minority Muslims, causing a danger to the public order: “In every village of the state, there are small religious places which were violated. Until they are demolished, the Hindu community will not sit idly.”
Records show that BJP MP, Hegde is in the habit of delivering hateful speeches. He is notorious for publicly airing anti-Muslim remarks and attacking the opposition leaders in a distasteful manner. For example, he even attacked Chief Minister Siddaramaiah for appeasing minority voters. In the recent past, he has given highly communal and anti-constitutional remarks but he is yet to be held accountable. Earlier when he was Union Minister for State, he questioned the credibility of Rahul Gandhi being a Hindu as he was, according to him, the son of a “Muslim” father and a “Christian” mother.
Worse still, Hegde went on to outrightly dismiss the national movement led by Mahatma Gandhi as “drama”. Around the same time, he threatened minority Muslim men with dire consequence of chopping off their hands if they tried to touch Hindu women. Attacking the foundation of democracy, he advocated changing the Constitution.
It is a welcome move that the Karnataka Police has taken suo motu cognisance and filed a case against Hegde for giving a public speech promoting mischief and aiming at causing religious enmity between communities. Let’s hope that the police fairly investigate the case and ensure that no one is above the rule of the law.
(The author is a Delhi-based journalist. He has taught political sciences at NCWEB Centres of Delhi University. )