Bharat Bhushan: Autonomous Hindutva could devour both India and the BJP
With the rapid radicalisation of sections of Hindu society, the Hindutva project has become dangerously autonomous. It is no longer possible to see it only as an electoral strategy of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Today one does not need to even presume the direct hand of the BJP or the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh behind Hindutva’s every move. Its exponential social growth may have placed it beyond their control.
In a formally secular
India, religion indeed seems to have become the opium of the people. When Marx
described religion as “the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a
heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the
people,” he spoke of it as a panacea that people invented to provide personal
solace to deal with the unpleasantness of social life. Indians seem to be
drugging themselves with religion when they should be fighting to overcome the
conditions of their miserable existence. Modernising societies try to
ameliorate living conditions by making them less tedious by reinventing their
economies to make them humane, by measures such as reducing the working week,
ensuring fair wages, improving working conditions, providing social security to
the unemployed and infirm.
In India by
contrast, Hindutva is a mass distraction from the transformative
social agenda that the country needs. It is reinventing religion not as “the
heart of a heartless world”, but as an avenging and vindictive force. The
rising ambient temperature of religious hatred has converted ordinary people
into activists planting saffron flags atop mosques, shouting provocative
slogans against the minorities, taking threatening religious processions
brandishing swords and trishuls, becoming amateur historians and archaeologists
discovering temples buried under mosques and
willing to set right ‘historical’ wrongs.
Their reference point is “Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them'' (co-authored by Arun Shourie, Harsh Narain, Jay Dubashi, Ram Swarup and Sitaram Goel). Organisations like “Reclaim Temples” list over 1800 temple sites that were destroyed and Hindutva social media rail against the BJP for not doing enough to reclaim these sites. This ‘research’ is neither carried out by the BJP nor sponsored by it. But it is an intellectual instrument available to Hindutva activists who will use it to construct narratives that push the BJP towards an agenda that it may be hesitant to take up as the ruling dispensation. There is little doubt now that Hindutva forces will seek the restoration of at least some of their iconic temple sites. The BJP may not be able to resist them.
That the institutions
of democracy will facilitate this development also seems likely. There was a
time when the official apparatus of Indian democracy had been carefully
secularised – those associated with extremist organisations of the Left and the
Right were carefully excluded at the stage of hiring using Intelligence Bureau
reports about their political leanings. Today in most institutions, including
the judiciary, ideological colours are worn with pride. Judges in local courts
are opening historical disputes with potential to cause social instability in
Mathura or Kashi. Noticeably, Supreme Court judges have junked the political
neutrality that was de rigueur. While he was still in service, Justice Arun
Mishra, described Prime Minister Narendra Modi as an “internationally acclaimed
visionary” and a “versatile genius”, while another serving judge, Justice M R
Shah, celebrated him as “our most popular, loved, vibrant and visionary
leader”.
Perhaps the visible
shift within the judiciary has encouraged Hindutva forces to use legal
processes to further their claims to mosque sites. Now no one can say they are
taking the law into their hands. They are aware that the Constitutional path
itself is an evolving one. The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of
1991 is meant “to prohibit the conversion of any place of worship and to
provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship
as it existed on the 15th day of August 1947, and for matters connected”.
However, Justice D Y Chandrachud’s comment while transferring the Gyanvapi
Mosque dispute to the jurisdiction of a district judge could be opening new
ways for interpreting this law. He said, “the ascertainment of a religious
character of a place, as a processual instrument, may not necessarily fall foul
of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 (of the Places of Worship Act)”. It
strikes at the core objective of the Act and could conceivably pave the way for
repealing it, should the Executive and Parliament so desire.
The minorities in
India will have no option but to deal with the ruling BJP if disputed sites
start getting reclaimed with judicial facilitation. The problems will escalate
when the 14% Muslim population of India is asked to give up their mosques,
Eidgahs and other sites peacefully. They have no leader to negotiate for them
and little political clout. No national party represents them. Even regional
political parties which seek their votes are known to play safe when it comes
to Hindutva sentiments. Unlike in the pre-Partition days, Muslims have no
pan-India leader representing them. Nor are they a monolithic community across
the country. Any peaceful negotiation for the few big temples claimed by
Hindutva forces will, therefore, necessarily be from a position of weakness –
and may turn out to be a dialogue preliminary to surrendering contested sites.
Is the BJP prepared
for the fact that such closing of doors on the minority community could
radicalise sections of its youth? If this happens will there not be a backlash
from the already radicalised Hindutva forces? Are there any far-sighted
statesmen in India today who can predict how this will affect the security and
stability of India?
Nevertheless, it is clear that the rise and spread of Hindutva’s avengers endangers the BJP’s own stability. Should the BJP try to moderate its own Hindutva because of governance concerns or its political alliances or even to deflect international criticism, it is possible that other political outfit(s) with a more hardline majoritarian agenda, could push it aside.
Bharat
Bhushan - Incitement to violence: When will Supreme Court take note?
Bharat Bhushan: Communal djinn and the
vanishing State
Samar
Halarnkar: The lights begin to wink out in India’s democracy
Bharat Bhushan - 'Entire political science'
lesson: Peoples' power trumps people in power
Bharat
Bhushan: Burden of bigotry may break Indian democracy's back
Bharat Bhushan - Incitement to violence:
When will Supreme Court take note?
Bharat Bhushan - Save the Election
Commission: Common electoral roll can wait
Bharat
Bhushan: Frontier of warfare? Wrong to securitise civil society discourse
YANN PHILIPPIN - Sale of French Rafale jet
fighters to India: how a state scandal was buried
Anne
Michel and Simon Piel - Rafale case: Fresh moves towards a corruption
investigation
Bharat
Bhushan - Scania Scandal: Need to step up to the challenge
Bharat
Bhushan - Pegasus impact: Loss to Indian Republic and government is much
greater
Bharat Bhushan: Has Modi government compromised national security through Pegasus?
Pratap
Bhanu Mehta: Ram’s political triumph // Purushottam Agrawal: Being Hindu in a
Hindu Rashtra
Kabir’s
search for solitude resembles our search for privacy in totalitarian times
Purushottam Agrawal - Lost in translation
सत्यपाल डांग को याद करते हुए.. RIP comrade Satyapal Dang - homage to
a great man