For Hindus the enemy is within
From the 19th century onwards, Hindu nationalists have argued that retaliatory violence is a legitimate form of dealing with the ‘enemy’. In doing so, they argued that in order to protect dharma, which was conveniently translated as religion, Hindus needed to resort to violence when required.
The question of the legitimacy of resorting to violence was always arbitrary.
Reverting to models in the mythological past, where the antagonism between devas and asuras inevitably led to the violent vanquishing of the asuras , Hindu nationalists ‘ democratised’ the right to label their adversaries as asuras and arrogated the right to vanquish these foes to themselves. -- By Jyotirmaya Sharma
By Jyotirmaya Sharma
Jul 20, 2010
THE DEBATE about ‘ Hindu terror’ requires, firstly, a serious rectification and amendment.
Just as there is nothing called ‘ Muslim terror’ or ‘ Islamic terror’, there is also nothing that corresponds to ‘ Hindu terror’. The individuals — with affiliations to what we know as the sangh parivar — who have been linked to events of Ajmer, Malegaon and Hyderabad are sangh parivar terrorists or Hindutva terrorists. Therefore, the phenomenon that we associate with individuals, who happen to be Hindus, indulging in acts of terror is Hindutva terror or sangh parivar terror. Having stated this, Hindutva terror is a greater threat than any form of terror facing the country.
The threat from the al- Qaida or the Lashkar is easily identifiable, it is external and these organisations fashion themselves as jihadi outfits. There is no camouflage or pretence about their goals, aims and methods. In sharp contrast, the legitimacy for Hindutva terror comes not merely from members that are formally part of the sangh parivar, but from a cross- section of Hindus in Indian society, but primarily Hindus from the ever expanding middle class.
Retaliation
From the 19th century onwards, Hindu nationalists have argued that retaliatory violence is a legitimate form of dealing with the ‘enemy’. In doing so, they argued that in order to protect dharma, which was conveniently translated as religion, Hindus needed to resort to violence when required.
The question of the legitimacy of resorting to violence was always arbitrary.
Reverting to models in the mythological past, where the antagonism between devas and asuras inevitably led to the violent vanquishing of the asuras , Hindu nationalists ‘ democratised’ the right to label their adversaries as asuras and arrogated the right to vanquish these foes to themselves.
Retaliatory violence was seen as the true embodiment of manhood or manliness and the ideal of the kshatriya was celebrated as exemplifying this principle. The writings of Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo, V. D. Savarkar and the ideologues of the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS are replete with arguments about the inevitability and the sanctity of violence in the overall project of Hindu nationalism.
From the 19th century onwards, revolutionary terrorism had a sanction under the guise of fighting the colonial rule and secret societies were organised to impart training in use of arms and in guerrilla warfare to its members.
In turn, justification for violence was always pegged on an equally arbitrary notion of what constituted Hinduism, on who was a Hindu and on the mostly imagined threat to this arbitrarily defined idea of religion and of faith. None of the Hindu nationalists were able to give a single sense of what they believed was Hinduism, but all of them, without exception, were engaged in the task of confining and restricting the definition of Hinduism.
They assumed that plurality and diversity were enemies of Hindu unity and consolidation and attempted to compartmentalise it into a set of well- defined features. It did not matter to them that some of these features were archaic, obsolete and anachronistic. The attempt was to impose a straight- jacketed idea of Hinduism in order to fulfil the Hindu nationalist utopia.
Despite exhortation to violence in order to achieve the Hindu nationalist goals, the self- image of the Hindu that was sought to be created was in direct contrast to the rhetoric and practice of violence.
They assumed that there was such an entity called Hindu society, and that the members that constituted Hindu society were mild, tolerant and peace- loving.
Hindus were seen as non- materialistic, other- worldly people, who were heirs to an unbroken tradition of civilisation, and retaliated only when forced to do so.
Hindutva terror builds on these two foundations. It derives legitimacy from the argument that Hindus attack only when threatened. The threat is constructed artificially, the enemy is identified equally arbitrarily and resorting to acts of terror justified in the name of liquidating these enemies. For them, like their ideological mentors, the enemy is always a group or an entire people, never specific individuals.
Concealment
Like all acts of terror born out of an inflamed sense of nationalism, the enemy is always a vague abstraction. Hindu nationalists also share, openly or otherwise, their disdain for liberal democratic norms and constitutional democracy. For them, these are ineffective ways of dealing with the ‘ enemy’. Added to this is their disdain for politics and their ideal of transforming society into a Hindu society based on their understanding of what constitutes Hinduism. At the same time it hides behind the myth of Hindu society being essentially democratic and tolerant.
While a large section of the Indian middle class might not vote for the BJP and have little sympathy with the cultural policing of the sangh parivar, they share equally and vigorously in the myth of the self- image of Hindu nationalism. No amount of evidence of acts of Hindutva terror is likely to convince a large section of the Indian elite and middle class that these acts could be planned and executed by Hindus.
The stereotype of the mild and tolerant Hindu is a myth shared across political affiliations, castes and class. One only needs to remember the case of Justice Liberhan. While he indicted significant individuals of the sangh parivar for having felled the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, he came to the conclusion that India was a democracy only because Hindu society was tolerant and plural. This is not an isolated view and it helps conceal Hindutva terror and its agents from the public gaze effectively.
Danger
It is likely that investigations into Hindutva terror will go the way of most other such investigations. In the end, the criminal justice system might fail to deliver as it does so often with impunity. In the meantime, Hindutva terror will only grow and get emboldened.
They will hide behind the myth of the mild Hindu and plan and execute more of such acts, while the unquestioning middle class will continue to look for the enemy elsewhere, little realising that the enemy has always been within for nearly two centuries. Amidst all this, the entity we know as Hinduism will continue to be gnawed from within by these contradictions till such time that it loses a sense of itself.
Of course, we will continue to mouth easy and corny platitudes like ‘ Hinduism is a way of life’, without asking the logical question as to whose way of life it is. Is it Pragna Bharati’s way of life or Narendra Modi’s way of life? Is it Mohan Bhagwat’s way of life or is it Advani’s way of life? In either case, there is not much to choose from. Each time Lashkar terrorists attack a spot in India, there would be a retaliatory strike in a mosque or a dargah, while we shall continue to look the other way and perfect our two- century long act of self- deception.
The writer is the author of Hindutva: Exploring the Idea of Hindu Nationalism ( 2003) and Terrifying Vision: M. S. Golwalkar, the RSS and India ( 2007) within
Source: Mail Today
9:42 PM
Sultan Shahin
0 comments:
Post a Comment