India, the largest democracy in the world, recently completed the massive exercise of electing its lawmakers, the members of Parliament. In the wake of the huge mandate which the ruling party Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) got, Prime Minster Narendra Modi made two significant observations. These observations are in the wake of a numerically strong ruling side and a comparatively weak Opposition.

The first thing Modi said was that we should not go just by paksh (ruling side) and vipaksh (opposition) but go by nishpaksh (neutral or balanced). The second point he made was that for the functioning of a democracy, the Opposition is very important, and its opinions will be taken seriously. The question is: Will the practice of the ruling party match this theory put forward by its leader? Going by what happened in Parliament during the recent oath-taking ceremony, with the constitution of the 17th Lok Sabha, one has to take the possibility of application of this theory with a pinch of salt.

Fresh from the massive victory, the members of the ruling party asserted and heckled the Opposition members. Majoritarianism was on display all through the oath-taking ceremony. They did this particularly by shouting slogans that do not have the same meaning for the Opposition party members. The particular targets of this sloganeering were the Muslim MPs as also members of the Trinamool Congress (TMC). When the Muslim MPs went to take oath, the House reverberated with slogans of ‘Jai Shri Ram, Vande Mataram, Mandir Wahin Banayenge’ (will build temple there only) and ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’.
On cue, Muslims MPs like Asaduddin Owaisi of All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen, retaliated by shouting, ‘Jai Bhim, Jai Meem, Takbeer Allahu Akbar and Jai Hind.’ Another Muslim MP, Shafikur Rahman Barq, went on to say Allahu Akbar and Hindusthan Ki Jai. He also said that chanting Vande Matram was against Islam, as worshipping anybody else other than Allah was not permitted in Islam. He also pointed out that the song equated the motherland in the image of a Hindu goddess. Yet another Muslim MP said Allahu Akbar and Jai Samvidhan (Constitution). On same footing, film actor-turned-politician Hema Malini chanted Radhe Radhe. The declining Left MPs called for defending secularism. The Trinamool Congress MPs, when faced with the chanting of Jai Shri Ram by BJP members, retaliated by saying Jai Maa Kali, Jai Bharat and Jai Bangla.

The nature of the slogans reflected the politics of the ones who chanted them. The very act of chanting did come across as an act of intimidation of the Opposition MPs.  It was a celebratory outburst of the massive success of the ruling party. The senior members of the ruling party did not dissuade their members from such behaviour, which was like ragging. While the BJP resorted to three slogans, in particular, Jai Shri Ram was the dominant one.

Parliament sounded like a religious place, not a ‘temple of democracy’. One expects Opposition MPs to be treated with the dignity they deserve, as per what Prime Minister Modi said about the importance of the Opposition in a democracy. The deliberate religious chants did show that the BJP is now in a commanding position in Parliament and will turn it into a sort of holy place of worship — of Lord Ram, who has been the major vote-catcher for BJP.

Since BJP’s campaign for the Ram Temple, the chant of Jai Shri Ram has been more of a political act rather than a religious-spiritual act. One recalls that even Lord Ram has not been looked at with a similar view by many in India. The likes of Sant Kabir saw the Lord as one who overcame the narrowness of caste.
Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the nation, saw Lord Ram as an ‘inclusive’ God. He also equated the supreme power to being Ram and Allah both. There are other ways also in which Lord Ram has been presented by Babasaheb Ambedkar and Periyar Ramasamy Naicker. Ambedkar’s book, Riddles of Rama and Krishna reflects his views about Ram’s killing of Shambuk, a dalit, Bali, a backward caste, and expelling his pregnant wife, Sita, to the forest. Periyar’s True Ramayan also presents the Lord in a similar vein.

As such, there are many Muslims who have no problem in saying Vande Mataram or Bharat Mata Ki Jai. Even the Constitution gives Vande Mataram the status of a National Song, not the National Anthem, which is Jana Gana Mana.

While Lord Ram has been popular in North India in particular, in Bengal, Maa Kali  has been the major deity. Interestingly, in Bengal, the BJP’s chariot is marching on the chant of Jai Shri Ram, while TMC is trying to retain its forte through Jai Maa Kali and by regionalising the issue between ‘outsiders’ and Bengalis.
Will TMC be able to retain its hold on West Bengal through Maa Kali is something to keep a watch on. In Bengal, two Hindu deities are being presented as symbols of two streams of politics!

Interestingly, the ruling party MPs did not chant about the Indian Constitution or Jai Hind. During the freedom movement, Inquilab Zindabad (Bhagat Singh) and Jai Hind (Subhash Chandra Bose) were the major slogans.

Such heckling around religious slogans has never been seen in this august House earlier. Religious chants have their own importance, but not in Parliament, where we need to discuss serious issues concerning the society.

The moot point in the whole spectacle is whether the ruling party will continue to snub Opposition members and members from the minority community by resorting to heckling through religious slogans, reflecting their deeper politics? In such a milieu, will the issues facing the people be taken up? The issues for which tall promises have been made along with dismal implementation, issues related to agrarian crisis, employment for youth; the ever-declining healthcare system with children dying due to lack of oxygen or failure to prevent a disease like encephalitis!
 
Ram Puniyani is an author and social worker. The views are personal.

Courtesy: Newsclick.in

A rural temple in South India, painted stone as deity.

If you hear the rising roar of faith, it is election-time in India. Belief in God is stronger than any political belief. Faith rushes to fill ideological vacuum and goes on to cleanse politics of its residual ideological content.  

Religious fervour, injected into a poll campaign, boosts popular interest in elections, promotes identity politics and alters voting preferences. That is why the ruling BJP has made religious polarisation its electoral strategy. It consolidates Hindu votes by propagating Hindutva, a militant and less inclusive version of Hinduism.
 

Hindu nationalists

The BJP leaders including L K Advani, who went to Ayodhya in 1992 to demand the building of a Ram temple, were erroneously called “Hindu fundamentalists”. Knowing that the term “fundamentalism” has acquired bad odour in the context of Islam, Advani declared that they were “Hindu nationalists” not “Hindu fundamentalists”. He was correct because going back to the fundamentals in his religion would mean the Vedic tradition which will rob the proposed Ram temple of all significance!
His 1992 movement to build a Ram temple generated a toxic mix of religion and nationalism and turned it into a potent political weapon. Till then the political armies marching under the saffron flag had not been able to make much headway. Advani’s historic journey to Ayodhya in his belief-driven ‘chariot’ led to the demolition of a mosque and the killings of Muslims and Hindus.

Noted documentary maker Anand Patwardhan says TV serial Ramayan, watched by millions, paved the way for the demolition of the Babri mosque. “A bow-and-arrow bearing Ram entered every household and every heart.” There was no social media then, but TV too promotes pop religion and causes social disharmony. Some partisan TV channels go all out to fuel religious polarisation.
 

Mental pollution

During the past four years, the sectarian poison has spread much more, with incidents of mob rule becoming frequent. It has seeped into “cultured” upper-class Hindu homes. The kind of people involved in violence matters. Intent is important. While sectarian violence can break out in the best of times, mental pollution sustains the process of violence.

The BJP finds assemblies of Hindu monks in saffron politically valuable. Communal worship and public observance of rituals make good TV that spreads the message of Hindutva. Mythology-based TV drama helps.

The Hindu nationalists wilfully ignore the theological complexities of Vedic thought and their faith’s glorious history of disputation and argumentation. They try to enforce a simplistic doctrine that supersedes the rich variegated strands of thought and belief. In order to collect Hindus on a single political platform, they want to create a central creed and designate one holy book. Above all, they want to establish the primacy of warrior-king Lord Ram. The people must feel, not think.

To get more Hindu votes, the party must fuel envy and animosity by blaming a secular government for “appeasing Muslims. In an election speech, Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a subtle reference to the Hindu cremation grounds and the Muslim graveyards. This was a hint that the socialist state government’s provision of building walls around the graveyards to protect these from encroachment was discriminatory.

In the run-up to elections, vicious statements are made to cause tensions and promote orthodoxy. What the BJP spokesmen shout at times during TV discussions is unfit to print. The Muslim spokesmen shout back, which serves the purpose of all sectarian forces. The atmosphere reeks of bigotry and hostility towards the “other” faith.  Some children hear their parents say that so and so should be elected since he would “fix” a minority. They learn that “when we say prayers loudly, it is worship, when they worship loudly, it is disturbing noise!” Children learn that “when we say prayers loudly, it is worship, when they worship loudly, it is disturbing noise!”

As the BJP gained power, the Hindutva got many new adherents. The “secular” leaders who used to condemn Narendra Modi’s sectarianism, now see a messiah in him. Several Hindutva groups have sprung up under official patronage. Their activity highlights the anti-minority dimension of Hindutva. The divisive rhetoric flows with force as the police and some in the lower rungs of judiciary have turned partisan.

Some BJP leaders make weird statements that can be generally described as anti-science and irrational. The power of superstition seems to have increased. A poll candidate declares that if she is elected, the police will not be allowed to check child marriage! The fashion of wearing religion on one’s sleeves has caught on. Commercial interests promote more religious festivals. The outbreak of religiosity is to be seen to be believed. More Hindu pilgrims march for miles and miles to fetch the holy Ganga water. Charitable Hindus set up tents on the footpaths for feeding the tired pilgrims. This public spectacle disrupts traffic and at times results in clashes.

Meditation, quiet contemplation.The attendance in temples has gone up. More Hindu temples, as also mosques and churches, are being built as a result of growing prosperity. Competitive communalism makes mosques more crowded. The temple loudspeaker’s volume is increased to match the sound coming from the neighbouring mosque. In this atmosphere of religious rivalry, private contemplation and meditation get devalued.
 

Hindutva versus Hindu interplay

A brainchild of the Hindu nationalists, Hindutva is not eclectic and dialogic. It has been honed as a powerful tool for political mobilisation through incendiary divisive statements. Hindutva fiercely seeks converts. When popularised by a charismatic divisive leader, its political dimension overshadows spirituality.

In the current atmosphere of intolerance, the political message of Hindutva is amplified through social media by political activists including the Non-Resident Indians. Little is heard about the huge difference between Hindutva and Hinduism known over the centuries as Santan Dharma.

To understand the distortion of Hinduism, one has to be familiarised with the real thing. Hinduism, tolerant and inclusive, includes principles taken from different faiths and cultures. Even before its interaction with Islam and Christianity, Hinduism assimilated new ideas and practices while transiting from the Vedic to the Puranic period.

Hinduism sanctifies sacrifices of the Vedic Aryans as well as the rituals of primitive tribes. Not all Hindu gods are Aryan gods. Hinduism has no central creed and no central authority, nor does it prescribe one specific book to follow. It is not based on a revelation granted to a prophet. Hindus do not consider themselves to be the “chosen people”. They do not consider their faith to be superior to others. This democratic religion, presided over by a Parliament of Gods, has no founder. Hinduism has no central creed and no central authority, nor does it prescribe one specific book to follow… This democratic religion, presided over by a Parliament of Gods, has no founder.

The Divine can be reached through any of the several different ways. Two prominent ones are the path of knowledge and the path of devotion. This is a simple journalistic statement about a faith whose complexities even scholars find hard to fathom. Hinduism is studded with elegant metaphysical knots and strange paradoxes. It offers infinite choice. Those who do not like the idea of a galaxy of gods and goddesses can take comfort from the Rig Vedic thought that all the many gods are manifestation of the One Reality. Hindus revere a saint-poet who does not believe in rituals or external formalities and for whom God lives, not in a temple or a mosque but in his devotion.

A Hindu can choose from the nine specified ways to perform devotion or devise one of his own. Astounding diversity is reflected not just in innumerable gods and ways of worship but also in the multiple versions of its sacred books and philosophical treatises. Rituals vary from region to region and from caste to caste. There is choice in the ways of dying. Hindus are generally cremated, but thousands of Hindus are given earthen and riverine burials. The variety of thought content, rituals and devotional practices meet the needs of all sections of society, ranging from the intellectual elite to the illiterate masses.

Millions recite 1000 names of one God and 1000 names of a Goddess. A sacred text features Mahadevi, literally the Great Goddess who encompasses the thousands of local and regional devis as well as the pan-Indian goddesses. Each god or goddess is worshipped in several forms.

Columnist Shobha Narayan writes about her mother being part of an ancient Hindu lineage linked to goddess worship called Sri Vidya. She says: “It is visually and aesthetically very beautiful – with flowers, incense, oil lamps, hand gestures called mudras, sacred drawings called mandalas or yantras, and the chanting of mantras. Mudra, mandala and mantra, the triumvirate as it were – is at the root of this goddess cult.” 

Hindus of one region may accord primacy to one form which may not be worshipped at all by those of another region. Then, the veneration of natural forces such as the monsoon rains and trees and of animals is common among those living in forests. Ideas and practices from the margins have been leaking into the mainstream.

This interplay is seen in Hindu religious art and objects made by Muslims.  They participate in Hindu religious festivals. Eminent Muslim musicians played in Hindu temples. Muslim poets wrote devotional songs in praise of Hindu Gods. A most devout Brahmin, Congress leader Kamalapati Tripathi, had a Muslim assistant to clean and arrange the idols in his home temple before daily worship.
 

Good behaviour

In the absence of a set form of worship, a Hindu is free to act according to his individual belief. What counts is not belief but conduct, as stated by philosopher S. Radhakrishnan, who was India’s President. No wonder Hinduism embraces believers and non-believers, the theist and the atheist, the sceptic and the agonistic.

Scholar Kshiti Mohan Sen says the uniting force among the enormous variety of religious beliefs and ceremonies in Hinduism has been the belief in a basic code of behaviour. Today he would have seen more Hindus indulging in an un-Hindu-like conduct at the behest of political leaders. The examples include the lynching of alleged beef transporters, intimidating women temple-goers, disrupting a Christian prayer meeting and demolishing a mosque.

The influence of Hinduism over Islam and Christianity is reflected in the Sufi tradition and in Christian meditation and Christian Vedanta. It can be seen in the global Hare Krishna movement. Hinduism also contributed to the New Age faiths! Muslims and Christians extended the reach of the sacred Hindu literature by translating it and even helped preserve some of it. This is never recalled while the voters are constantly reminded of the Hindu temples destroyed by the Moghuls.

India’s syncretic tradition can be attributed mainly to the diversity of Hinduism that has a history of several philosophical turns. Of course, this diversity leads to confusion over certain precepts. Differing practices and various interpretations of the same sacred text, in the absence of a validating central authority, result in mixed-up theological concepts and endless arguments. That is why theological dissent always got accommodated.

Hinduism is suffused with paradoxes. The Divine is unimaginable and unknowable and yet the Divine is imagined in countless forms appearing in representational and abstract art and as idols of stone and metal. Hindus worship gods both in iconic and aniconic forms. The deity in thousands of rural temples is just a painted stone. Devotion takes the form of meditation, quiet contemplation, lighting sacrificial fire, loud out-of-tune community singing, disciplined congregational chanting, ritual bathing, fasting or even social service since God lives in every human being.

There is latent divinity in every being and everything. There is an external God and the God within. God is a distant entity but then the devotee is also part of Brahman, the universal soul! Ahaṁ Brahmāsmi in general terms implies the unity of individual self with the Absolute. Thus, divinity is shared by every human being. Divisive rhetoric has to be foreign to Hinduism which says: Thou art That (Tat Tvam Asi).
 

Faux religiosity

Scholars of comparative religions can observe how Hinduism, when hijacked for political purposes, gets vulgarised. The devotees are encouraged to display faux religiosity. The Sarkari (pro-Government) “seers”, in their so-called religious discourses, bless the Prime Minister. The ruling party needs their endorsement, the seers want political patronage. The seers are sought after by politicians more than by spiritual aspirants.

Respected heads of genuine spiritual institutions keep quiet about the misuse of religion for elections. Surely, they are pained by the distortion of their faith tradition, seeing an immense idea being reduced to a dismal creed. Islamic leaders get blamed for not condemning the misuse of their faith by politicians and terrorists. One may ask where have the Hindu spiritual leaders gone? Islamic leaders get blamed for not condemning the misuse of their faith by politicians and terrorists. One may ask where have the Hindu spiritual leaders gone?

The distortion of Hinduism does not provoke much reaction while many western Christian communities vigorously debate spirituality vs. institutionalised religion. Currently there is no such discourse in Hinduism, notwithstanding its tradition of argumentation. 
It is left to a few secular politicians and the leftists to offer a trenchant criticism of Hindutva. They reason well but they cannot influence those swayed by the men in saffron robes. The leftists, not well-versed in India’s spiritual traditions, have little leverage with the faithful. Only firm believers protesting against the “hijacking of our religion” can make an impact. They can increase the public understanding of Hinduism unsullied by politics.

Those rushing to demolish a mosque or build a temple on a disputed plot know nothing about a faith that assimilated various religions and cultural movements. They are familiar with folklore, mythology and miracles and black magic but unaware of the Vedic Song of Creation that wonders whether even the Creator knows all! That kind of questioning will be considered blasphemy and a punishable offence in some other religions. The sacred texts of Hinduism make bigotry unthinkable. In the wake of the Babri mosque’s demolition, Prof. Amartya Sen attributed growing fanaticism to the neglect of the classics in education. In the wake of the Babri mosque’s demolition, Prof. Amartya Sen attributed growing fanaticism to the neglect of the classics in education.
 

Fanaticism versus self-renewing reform

Fanaticism characterises the politicisation of a religion which retards reforms. The Supreme Court lifted the ban on the entry of young women into a Hindu temple. The BJP launched an agitation against the entry of young women in order to uphold a “sacred tradition”. However, the same ruling party was all for abolishing the traditional Muslim custom of instant divorce because it oppressed Muslim women. The BJP Government undertook the noble mission of reforming Islam but considers reformation of Hinduism as a no-go area. The BJP president advises law courts to refrain from hurting Hindu sentiments and to pass only such judgments that are “implementable”!

Every old faith tradition accumulates undesirable rituals and practices and Hinduism, being a product of many cultures and cults, is more prone to do so. In its long journey, Hinduism acquired and discarded many questionable rituals. It abolished some practices partly due to the influence of Christian values but mainly by recollecting its own glorious Vedic past. There was recognition of the corruptive influence of idolatry, child-marriage, self-immolation by widows and untouchability that had no place in its ancient culture.

Commenting on this process of reforms and renewal, scholar Kshiti Mohan Sen writes that the impact of the West produced new schools of thought which emphasised old doctrines.

Swami Dyanand who founded Arya Samaj to reform Hinduism.Hinduism has a rich history of reforms. Swami Dayanand Saraswati (1824-83), who founded the Arya Samaj, gave the call “Back to the Vedas”, drawing a large section of Hindus away from idol-worship and exploitative priests. Arya Samaj established excellent educational institutions and worked to raise the status of the backward classes. It also introduced proselytization, which was no part of the Hindu traditions.

Swami Dayanand came from the state of Prime Minister Narendra Modi who had used regional pride as an electoral card. Curiously, videos glorify several sons of Gujarat, but not this Arya Samaj founder! Praising this great Gujarati will pose a problem for the party that has made the Ram Temple a central issue of its political campaign. Arya Samaj opposes idol-worship. The Vedic tradition involved sacred sacrifice in the open. The Indo-Aryans did not build permanent structures for the practice of their religion. Temples began to be built much later when worship and supplication were added to sacrifice in the Hindu religious ethos.

In Bengal, Raja Rammohun Roy (1774-1833) founded the Brahmo Samaj facing opposition by orthodox Hindus who were dead set against his progressive outlook on social matters. He advocated modern education and wanted Indians to learn science and technology. His agitation led to the abolition of the criminal practice of Sati that ordained a wife to commit suicide by plunging into the fire consuming her dead husband.

Reformer Raja Rammohan Roy.Another new school of Hinduism developed in Bengal under the influence of Ramakrishna Paramhamsa (1834-86) that appealed to the common man who just prays before a deity without bothering about theology. This simple communication with God, known as the Bhakti movement, became very popular. Earlier in the late 15th century Bengal, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu had mesmerised his followers, leading them in congregational chanting, Sankirtan. There were reformers in south India who are venerated by millions of Hindus.

Chaitanya Mahaprabhu – simple devotion through singing in praise of the Lord.In British India, the conservative Hindu leaders debated with reformers vigorously, but that contestation was due to clashing beliefs and not a political strategy for use in a democracy. Today the orthodox Hindu leaders who are corralled into supporting Prime Minister Modi have no interest in theological debates.

In the current atmosphere, Hindus hesitate to even talk of reforms lest they are called anti-Hindu. Political mobs are unleashed on the few reformists asserting the inclusiveness of Hinduism and fighting bigotry. Swami Agnivesh, a social activist who propagates the Vedic tradition, has faced physical assaults. That has not deterred him from continuing his struggle against superstitions that defile religion. Swami Agnivesh laments that politicians promote belief without truth. He reminds the people that the Vedic religion identified God with truth and Gandhi went a step further by saying that “Truth is God”.

The Hindu nationalists always opposed religious reforms. In Nehru’s secular India, they protested strongly, but the Government went ahead taking steps for improving the status of Hindu women. Today it seems like a miracle that in the face of horrendous Partition-related Hindu-Muslim killings, the Congress leaders managed to establish a secular state. That feat was made possible by Hinduism’s spirit of tolerance and mass adoration of the secular leaders. The parent bodies of today’s Hindutva forces failed to politically challenge Nehru and destroy the Nehruvian ethos. Nehru had called development projects the new temples of India!

The slogan “Hinduism in danger” had no appeal then as Hindus had enough self-confidence. That was the India that was! Since then much water has flowed down the holy Ganga. Hinduism now figures in a story of regression. Read the newspapers, listen to the TV “debates” and see the WhatsApp-trained ignorant armies clash day and night.

 

Kedarnath shrine. Youtube.

Democracy and religiosity are no longer strange bedfellows in the secular India. The display of religiosity spikes during election time. The contestants either seek the Divine blessing or show that they are not atheists. Poll campaigns require a heavy dose of piety apart from large sums of money. Faith moves the voters to the polling booths. The electoral battle at times is won by polarising the Hindu voters. Leading a campaign to build a Hindu temple can make a party leader from zero to hero. The voters overlook the fact that India is not short of temples but short of schools and hospitals. The voters overlook the fact that India is not short of temples but short of schools and hospitals.

The Opposition Congress leader Rahul Gandhi finds it necessary not to let the temple visits remain the unique selling point of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi. So he goes visiting temples in the poll-bound state of Gujarat, Modi’s home state. Gandhi’s temple visits naturally upset the BJP leaders who issue hostile statements. Is visiting a temple still the privilege of the chosen few? Did Rahul Gandhi commit a sin by visiting temples in Gujarat? The BJP leaders who trolled him for doing so seemed to believe so. But in this pre-election season more BJP leaders have visited more Hindu temples.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi frequently visits temples in the glare of TV cameras. He even talks about his getting a Divine Call. This time he greeted the people of Gujarat from a temple in the Himalayas that ranks high in the hierarchy of shrines. Setting aside the secular principles to which India is committed, the Prime Minister promised to reconstruct the Kedarnath shrine with the taxpayers’ money! He went to the extent of revealing that Baba (Lord Shiva) had decided that the responsibility of doing the reconstruction work at Kedarnath Temple should be assigned to no one else but to Baba’s son (Read Modi)!
One of the builders of the ruling BJP was hailed as Hindu Hriday Samrat, Monarch of the Hindu Hearts, before he was ousted by the Crown Prince to whom the title was transferred by his followers. Till now Modi has done nothing to displease the hardline Hindu followers in his extended political family. Thus he retains the title.
 

Identity matters

The efficacy of the Hindutva card in elections is tested all the time. Identity in politics has come to matter more in India just as in America and Europe. Narendra Modi once declined to wear the distinctive skull cap offered to him at a public function. That cap would have confused the voters about his brand image based on a different religion.

The Hindu temples are in the news for non-electoral reasons also. One more temple in south India recently allowed the untouchables to enter it. Another temple for the first time appointed a non-Brahmin priest.

But Rahul Gandhi’s visits to temples in the poll-bound Gujarat hit the headlines because the BJP saw in his visits a conspiracy to diminish its USP. As if it was asking Rahul Gandhi “what right do you have to come to a place that we visit!” Only they must have a direct line to the Hindu Gods and Goddesses who grant electoral boons.

The BJP leaders, who spell secular as “sickular”, scampered to protect their party’s brand image built assiduously over the years through agitations against the Hindu Code Bill and cow slaughter and a violent movement for replacing the Babri Mosque with a temple of Lord Ram.

The brand image matters in politics even more since electioneering now depends heavily on bands, buntings and social media videos. A brand strategy is as critical for a political party as for Apple or Samsung. Had Rahul Gandhi been a company, he would have been sued for stealing the brand!

For a leader, being associated with multiple faiths and cultures used to be a plus point. It has become a liability. It pays political dividends if the leader is seen following the rituals and traditions of the religion of the majority. It does not matter if he is constantly engaged in violating the spirit of that faith. Being associated with multiple faiths and cultures used to be a plus point. It has become a liability.
 

Insinuations

A party that polarises the Hindu votes makes the religious majority feel besieged and see its faith in danger! It needs a distinct ‘other’ to be pitted against. And the other in the Indian context subscribes to a minority faith. That is why some political opponents of the BJP such as Mulayam Singh and Mamta are addressed in a way that misrepresents them as followers of the faith that they do not belong to. Mulayam is addressed as Maulana Mulayam and Mamta as Mamta Bibi. This way they are branded as “the other”. The comments attacking Rahul Gandhi for visiting temples included a reference to the Muslim way of praying. Insinuations matter in the politics of hate.

Since the Hindu card worked in some recent elections, there is a greater incentive to mix religion with politics in violation of the Constitution. Any step towards positive discrimination is called appeasement of the minorities. Fake religiosity is promoted and used for a political project designed to brand the Congress as anti-Hindu.

This kind of political challenge is not new for Congress. It faced political Hinduism even in the first General Elections when the secular freedom-fighters had an extraordinary mass appeal. Determined to reform the Hindu personal law through the Hindu Code Bill, the Congress handed the first big opportunity to the Jana Sangh the parent body of the BJP, to mobilise forces against secularism.

Nehru was challenged by Swami Prabhudutt Brhmachari who campaigned against the Bill arguing that it went against the age-old values associated with his religion. The newly born political party Bharatiya Jana Sangh went into the poll battle portraying the Congress leaders as anti-Hindu.

Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant, the then UP Chief Minister, while campaigning in the elections, felt it necessary to counter this propaganda. In a Lucknow public meeting, Pant listed the achievements of the Congress and Nehru’s contribution. He went on to assure the audience that the interests of the Hindus were well protected. With a flourish, he added: “Aakhir hum bhi to Hindu hain” (after all, we are also Hindus). Suddenly there was a chorus from all corners of the meeting: “Pantji bhi aaj se Hindu hain!” (Pantji is also a Hindu from today!)

Rahul Gandhi will do well to read the account of that campaign written by journalist and freedom fighter Upendra Vajpeyi. “Pantji looked around. There was no police or the Congress volunteers to stop the slogan-mongers who had, in small groups, taken position in all corners. They were all committed volunteers of the newly-born outfit, the forerunner of today’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).”

Even then, this party understood well the functioning of the print media. The disturbance of the meeting became the main news in the reports that downplayed what Pant had said about the achievements of the Congress!
 

Atrocious statements

In his subsequent election speeches, Pandit Pant skipped all references to Hinduism and still Nehru won with an impressive margin. The challenge by the Hindutva forces was not strong during those days. Today the appeal of Hindu nationalism has increased, thanks to the traditional as well as social media. And there is no Sardar Patel to ban any communal party. The leaders can make the most atrocious statements to inflame sectarian passions.

The Congress poll strategists have to factor in this reality of the new India. In the process, Congress may succeed in protecting the nation from religious extremism but not without compromising its principles intended to promote secularism.

The genie of fanaticism is out of the bottle. The influential Hindu saints and scholars have not spoken against bigotry. They have watched silently the distorted presentation and political misuse of their sacred faith. The genie of fanaticism is out of the bottle. The influential Hindu saints and scholars have not spoken against bigotry.

Today educated young men donning “I Love New York” T-shirts are seen crowding footpath temples on the auspicious days of the week. The public discourse is full of abuses against certain sections. The audio-visual media, laser shows and managed events have magnified the images of the Hindu Gods and Goddesses.

The distinction between science and mythology and mythology and history keeps eroding. Ironically, the message of scientific temper, modernity and secularism resonated with the people more when the rate of literacy was low.

Nehru could describe the irrigation projects as the temples of modern India and get away with it. A Bengali comedian could make fun of the characters of the Ramayan in his public performances. The feminists could question Lord Ram through their poetry. The people had a better understanding of the traits of the Maryada Purshottam Ram and the principles of Raj Dharma, the noble conduct of the King. Today even a stray comment can hurt one community or the other.

With a view to promote Hindu nationalism, history is being rewritten. The memory of even the recent past has to be obliterated. Some political leaders have included the Taj Mahal in the list of the hate objects. Their prime hate object the Babri Mosque has already been demolished.

Kedarnath shrine, 2015.

Restoring sanity

India has travelled quite a distance from the days when irrigation projects were called the temples of modern India. Only a few years ago, the most learned and devout Brahmin such as Kamlapati Tripathi, the Congress leader, had a Muslim assistant to clean and rearrange his home temple and its idols before his daily prayers. Dayanand Saraswati had launched a powerful reformist movement that discarded idol worship and popularised the Vedic culture.

Such leaders and not the left liberals will be able to counter the communal forces. Learned preachers and apolitical monks well versed in the faith traditions can expose the political pracharaks (propagandists) exploiting Hinduism. They alone can help restore sanity in the nation and prevent the distortion of Hinduism. The communal forces can be fought more effectively by some one who, like the late philosopher Ramchandra Gandhi, attacks them for “hijacking my religion”.

The BJP has been asking the people to shout with pride: “We are Hindus”, Garva se kaho hum Hindu hain! The slogan sways a large majority. However, on some Hindus it is having the opposite effect. They feel embarrassed by the antics and the bigotry of the self-styled defenders of Hinduism. There is anecdotal evidence of some disenchanted Hindus searching for spiritual solace in other faith traditions or distancing themselves from all religions.

Their numbers are very limited but the damage to the brand image of Hinduism may be huge. The defenders of Hinduism must remember how the image of Buddhism got sullied by the bands of violent monks and Islam stands discredited because of the violence and terror resorted to by the jihadis. A few extremists can malign a political party or a religion. At stake is the brand image of Hinduism as well as that of India. At stake is the brand image of Hinduism as well as that of India.

In India’s politically surcharged atmosphere today one gets to hear strange statements and see strange scenes. A ruling party leader claims that a Shiva Temple lies under the Taj Mahal. A State Governor and the Chief Minister ceremonially welcome Lord Ram alighting from a helicopter that doubles as the Pushpak Viman of the mythological India.

If mythology is inducted into science, if rational thinkers are killed and educational institutions devalued, the people can be made to believe what the dominant political force wants them to believe. If argumentation is prohibited no political choices are left.

A wag says more is yet to come because competitive sectarianism follows a set trajectory. Nationalism gets superseded by ultra-nationalism. Some may demand the renaming of India and the scrapping of the Hindu Code Bill that reformed the Hindu personal laws. Some may want 10 Hindu saints to be nominated to the Upper House of Parliament to give moral guidance to the Government!

Nothing is impossible in the new India!

L K Sharma has followed no profession other than journalism for more than four decades, covering criminals and prime ministers. Was the European Correspondent of The Times of India based in London for a decade. Reported for five years from Washington as the Foreign Editor of the Deccan Herald. Edited three volumes on innovations in India. He has completed a work of creative nonfiction on V. S. Naipaul.  

This artticle was first published on Open Democracy

On my visits to India, I am often asked for my views on whether Partition should have happened.

This question partly arises out of nostalgia – the longing for the unbroken motherland, the desire to travel across the border, the yearning to stand on the soil and breath the air that gave birth to our ancestors.

But the question is also party a euphemism that hides layers of assumptions and assertions. Hidden in it are several other questions and statements: “Aren’t you upset with Pakistan’s state of affairs? The nation is fragmented, at war with it itself. There is no national identity. Don’t you wish it was still a part of India, that Partition had never happened?”
 

The quest for roots

Back home, Pakistanis often joke among themselves that it is only cricket that can bring the nation together. In drawing room conversations, some will quip about the lack of national unity, while others will somberly discuss the need to craft a national identity by taking pride in indigenous traditions and practices. Some will say that rather than teaching children Shakespeare, we should educate them about Bulleh Shah and Baba Farid.

Others, though in the same spirit of creating national solidarity, will propose different solutions. Some will ask for Bollywood movies to be banned so that Pakistani cinema and artists can flourish and children can grow up without Hindu influences, while yet others will speak about expunging American influences that have been supposedly corrupting the nation and taking it away from its own roots.

This desire to go back to their roots is shared by many Pakistanis, though what those roots are is increasingly being contested. For some liberals and intellectuals, going back to the roots, could mean owning pre-Islamic traditions and histories from the Indus Valley Civilization, for others it manifests in religious appropriation of those very roots. Car number plates will read

“Al-Bakistan” and there will be an argument for making Arabic compulsory across schools while indigenous languages like Punjabi are sidelined as unruly and crude.

Children will be forbidden from seeing the viral cartoon series, Peppa Pig because the animal is considered “unislamic.” And committing blasphemy will become far too easy, because everything and anything can be construed as sacrilegious in a society bent upon Islamisising all aspects of life, from cartoons to car number plates.

Does all of this help in creating a national identity? It is often alleged that Pakistan suffers from an existential crisis, uncertain of why it was created and even more unsure of how it will continue existing in the face of growing threats, both internal and external. It is also argued that the country has a weak national identity, if any at all. National spirit, national pride and national unity are missing.
 

Nation = religion

Contrary to this, I would argue that the nation has as strong a national identity as its neighbour to the East, or for that matter, as most nations. In fact, Pakistan can be considered a pioneer in constructing national identity in the contemporary world if one broadens the understanding of what nationalism means today.

From Europe and America to India, religious nationalism is on the rise. Nationalism is no longer limited to patriotic spirit, of being proud of what one’s nation has achieved; rather, it is increasingly about who should be achieving and who is holding them back.
Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 US Presidential elections has been hailed as a victory of white Christian America. After decades of oppression, he has promised to give them back their rights and opportunities, that had for far too long been hijacked by those who don’t really belong – namely Mexicans and Muslims.

In Europe, the refugee influx, mostly from Muslim countries, has become a catalyst for the rise of rightwing, religiously inclined parties. Brexit – Britain’s vote to exit the European Union – was also inspired by the idea of separating oneself from particular races and religions that can pose a threat to British sovereignty.

And in India, what it means to be patriotic has increasingly become saffronised. The dangerous growth of vigilantism in the name of protecting the cow, religious indoctrination in textbooks and violence against anyone perceived as anti-national is alarming. Just as nationalism and Islam have been woven into a complex web in Pakistan, in India too nationalism is increasingly becoming synonymous with Hinduism.
 

Religious rhetoric

In Pakistan, religion has always been politicised and embedded in the national rhetoric. The country’s raison d’être is the two-nation theory, which is premised on the separation of Hindus and Muslims. Soon after the creation of the country, it became the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The swift action gave Muslims greater rights and privileges while largely invalidating the existence of any non-Muslims.

Today, the most popularly understood meaning of Pakistan is, “La Ilaha Illallah Muhammadur Rasulullah,” – there is no god but Allah – the same holy words that are used while converting someone to Islam. How, then, can a Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Baha’i or Parsi belong as much to this land as Muslims do?

The State has crafted one of the strongest religious-national identities based on the opposition of the other: non-Muslim and the infidel. The narrative is so powerful that the State often does not even need to step in to ensure its persistence. Mob attacks and violence against anyone deemed to be challenging Islam are rampant. And since Islam is seen as synonymous with Pakistan, it becomes all too easy to charge all those perceived to be anti-nationals as anti-Islamic and hence open them to all kinds of punishment, both by the state and the moral policing of fellow citizens.

This was also seen during the disappearance of five Pakistani social media activists, known for their secular, Left-leaning views, who mysteriously went missing in January and were soon labeled as blasphemers, which in Pakistan can be punishable by death. The lines between anti-state and anti-Islam are increasingly blurry.

Finding inspiration in this religious-nationalist narrative, other countries have followed suit. They have realised that while people may be open to hearing criticism of state policies, they will be far less likely to hear anything that goes against their religious sentiments. Infusing religion into national sentiments is perhaps the most sure-shot way of maintaining supremacy and silencing all dissent.

Anam Zakaria is the author of Footprints of Partition: Narratives of Four Generations of Pakistanis and Indians.

Courtesy: Scroll.in

Pathologically communal or back to basics? More apt descriptors of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s comments at Sunday’s election rally in Fatehpur, Uttar Pradesh, cannot be found. But let’s be clear: The statements he made are the default setting of the party he leads with his friend Amit Shah.

At the rally, Modi pleaded in the name of non-discrimination that a cremation ground should also be constructed in a village that has a burial ground, and that electricity should be distributed equally between Hindu and Muslim communities, especially during their festivals.

Modi said:

“Gaon me kabristan banta hai to shamshaan bhi bananaa chahiye. Ramzan me bijli aati hai to Diwali me bhi aani chahiye…Agar Holi mein bijli milti hai, to Eid par bhi bijli milni chahiye. 
“[If a graveyard is made in a village, it should also have a cremation ground. If a village gets electricity during Ramzan, it should also get the same during Diwali…If there is electricity during Holi, there should be electricity during Eid too.]”
 

He added:

“There shouldn’t be any discrimination. It is the duty of a government to be unbiased. Injustice shouldn’t be done to anybody…it should never be on the basis of religion or caste or class.”
 

Graveyards have been a sensitive issue in the villages of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh for a long time now. In the year preceding the 2015 Assembly election in Bihar, more than a dozen incidents of encroachment and small-scale violence related to graveyards were reported from that state.

The BJP and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh have always tried to keep this issue alive. Muslims have legitimately demanded boundary walls around their burial grounds as sometimes idols are put there in a bit to encroach, or attempts are made to carve out a thoroughfare through these grounds on the pretext of creating shortcuts. The boundary walls offend some Hindus as the land is officially made out of bounds for them. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has played on this feeling of deprivation successfully.

Therefore, the constituency of the BJP is clear about which community is being discriminated against. The myth that Hindus are made to suffer, and Muslims benefit at their cost, has been nurtured in our minds since our childhood. If I recall my childhood days in Bihar correctly, there was a perception at that time that Hindus did not get an adequate supply of water on Holi, the spring festival of colours, and they had to suffer electricity cuts even on Diwali, the festival of lights, whereas Muslims received an uninterrupted supply of water and electricity on Eid and Bakr-Eid. This perception was totally unfounded, but Hindus believed it then, and still do.
 

Hindu vs Muslim

While making his comments on Sunday, the prime minister perhaps took his cue from Union Power Minister Piyush Goyal, who, two days before the first phase of voting in Uttar Pradesh, alleged that electricity wires bypassed Hindu homes.
Reporting on Goyal’s February 9 press conference, the National Herald quoted the minister as saying:
 

“BJP MP Sarvesh Kumar had lodged a complaint with Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) about discrimination in distribution of power connections on the basis of religion in Moradabad. After inquiry these charges were found to be correct.”
 

The National Herald later talked to AN Mishra, a top official in the Uttar Pradesh electricity department. Mishra dismissed Goyal’s allegations, saying:
 

“There is no hop, skip and jump when electricity flows through conductors. There is no mechanism by which you can give electricity to Muslims and deny the same to Hindus.”
 

The issue of compensation

In the same press conference, Goyal also referred, rather crassly, to the issue of compensation. He alleged:
 

“The BJP has always been saying that SP [Samajwadi Party] thrives on appeasement of Muslims. It gave different compensation to Hindus and Muslims – the Muslims got more money while Hindus did not even get half of it. This is on record and anyone can verify it.”
 

Compensation after a mishap or tragedy is another sensitive issue with Hindus. In violence-hit areas in Bihar and western Uttar Pradesh, Hindus often complain that Muslims have been treated royally by the respective state governments while they have been left high and dry. Those who enquire further are also told that if a Muslim police officer dies, his relatives get jobs, and crores as compensation, whereas the families of slain Hindu officers are left to languish without any monetary compensation.

It is not surprising therefore that Modi is consistent. It works through a ritual of repetition, and Modi does not seem to lose heart from the fact that his narrative has not clicked with voters on certain occasions.

Let us compare the prime minister’s Fatehpur speech with his speeches from the Bihar elections to see that they have been consistent. In Fatehpur, apart from demanding a cremation ground for each graveyard, Modi hinted that Muslims are the main beneficiaries of state schemes. He said:
 

“Ask a Dalit in Uttar Pradesh and he will tell you that he is not getting his rights because these are given only to the OBCs [Other Backward Classes]. Ask an OBC and he will say that Yadavs are enjoying all the benefits. A Yadav says the family members of the Samajwadi leaders are hogging the advantages [government-sponsored benefits], and the rest goes to the Muslims.”
 

In Bihar, Modi used similar language to accuse the Nitish Kumar government of favouring Muslims, of taking away from Hindus to give to Muslims. It was not borne out by facts, but Modi repeated it unabashedly. He reiterated it even when there was an uproar, and figures disproving his claims were brought to his attention.

At a rally in Buxar, Bihar, on October 26, 2015, Modi alleged:
 

“These leaders [Nitish Kumar and Lalu Prasad] are making a devious plan. They are conspiring to take away five per cent reservation of Dalits, Mahadalits, backwards and extremely backwards and give it to a particular community…I come from an extremely backward class and understand the pain of having been born to a poor woman. I will not allow this to happen. I pledge to protect the rights of Dalits, mahadalits and backwards.”
 

Calling this a sinful plan – “paap ki yojana” – Modi said: “Nobody will be allowed to take away your reservation and give it to any other community in pursuit of their vote bank politics.”

In his Fatehpur speech, Modi also referred to a case in which Arun Verma, the Samajwadi Party MLA from Sultanpur, had been booked for the murder of a woman who had accused him of rape.

Modi said:
 

“Kya maa-betiyon ki ijjat lootne ke liye SP ki sarkar banai thi…maa-betiyon ki hatya karne ke liye SP ki sarkar banai thi? 
“[Was the SP government elected to rape and kill our mothers and daughters.]”
 

If you put Modi’s comments together with Amit Shah’s pledge in Kaptanganj on Monday to shut down all slaughter houses in Uttar Pradesh if the BJP was voted to power and convert “a river of blood of cows, oxen and buffaloes in Uttar Pradesh” into a river “in which ghee and milk flow”, and to form anti-Romeo squads to punish “a particular kind of motorcycle riders” (read Muslims) who harass women, the Modi-Shah strategy becomes very stark.
 

Inherent ideology

The communal strategy deployed by Modi and his party failed miserably in Bihar in 2015. Then why are Modi-Shah still speaking this tired language?

Those who think in narrow instrumentalist ways believe that only success drives one’s instinct. But there is also something called ideology, which one inculcates, which one is trained in, which one believes in, which is one’s world view and which makes each person who they are.

Social psychologist Ashis Nandy understood the psychological make up of Narendra Modi long ago, when nobody would have dared to suggest that Modi would one day rule India. After interviewing Modi, who was a worker with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh at that time, Nandy told his colleague, Achyut Yagnik, that he had just met a textbook fascist.

After Modi took over as prime minister of India in 2014, and everybody was dying to believe that he had changed, that he had been swept into power on an inclusive plank of development, Nandy was interviewed. The interviewer asked Nandy if he would like to comment on his earlier understanding and description of Modi. Nandy said, his voice unwavering, that he stood by his professional conclusion.

Thus, it is not desperation that has driven the prime minister towards communalism.

However, at elite gatherings, one argument put forward to defend Modi’s communal statements goes thus: “What can the poor man do if the idiots do not understand his appeal for development, he has to speak in language they understand.” The people who say this would like us to believe that Modi, and the BJP, is all for development but they need power for this noble mission. Since power comes only through elections, and since the so-called casteist and secular parties have practised only the language of caste and religion for decades, BJP and its leaders have no option but to resort to this communalist communication strategy.

The argument goes on to say: “Everything is fine and no one is discriminated against once the BJP comes to power. Look at Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan – absolute peace and high speed development! Are Muslims not getting a part of this?”

It is this logic that keeps the backers of Modi and the BJP from even raising their eyebrows at the communal statements made by Modi and his party men, often at election rallies. Additionally, the prime minister gets no notices from the Election Commission.

Meanwhile, the anti-minority communal statements are repeated in a loop. These statements accumulate in our minds, their roots going deeper and deeper into our social psyche.

Apoorvanand is a professor of Hindi at the University of Delhi.

This article was first published on Scroll.in