By Arshad Alam, New Age Islam
09 June 2018
The Congress party must be much relieved
now. A seasoned congressman like Pranab Mukherjee giving a valedictory address
at an RSS function must have made the party extremely nervous and
understandably so. However, the content of the speech laid to rest any anxiety
over Pranab Mukherjee’s new found love for the RSS. He spoke, although not as
eloquently as the Sarsanghachalak, Mohan Bhagwat, and stressed the need for
tolerance and pluralism. He argued that these two traits have defined Indian
nationalism. In no uncertain terms, he told us that various ideas and
identities have made what constitutes the Indian nation today. The kind of
ideologues that he quoted like Gandhi, Nehru and Tagore, all belong to a very
different spectrum of ideological thought as compared to the RSS’ views on
Indian nationalism. Throughout his speech, Pranab Mukherjee underlined the
importance of diversity and pluralism and identified them as the unique feature
of Indian nationalism.
Should the RSS be worried that the person
whom they invited trounced them ideologically and that the very purpose for
which they called him got defeated? While many commentators have certainly
thought so, the hard truth is that in terms of actual points of divergence,
there was very little to choose between what the RSS chief said and what Pranab
Mukherjee said. Of course, they belong to different political ideologies but
when it comes to nationalism, there seems to be a broad consensus on what they
were stating. Let us go through it point by point.
There was a sense in which both the
speakers highlighted only the achievements of ancient India. It is a no brainer
that ancient India is synonymous with Hindu India and therefore it is
understood as the epitome of Indian culture. Pranab Mukherjee talked about the
achievements of ancient Indian culture through the trope of different empires
and existence of different universities like Takshila at that time. When it came
to medieval period which is synonymous with Muslim rule, all that he had to say
was that this was a period of ‘Muslim invaders’. For the RSS’ this must be
music to their ears. After all, a senior congressman was echoing just their
viewpoint of Indian history. In both their speeches, the Muslim was made
invisible by not talking about them at all.
To be fair, Bhagwat laid stress on the
essential cultural continuity of Indian civilization but was quick to point out
that this continuity was only possible through the uninterrupted flow of
Hinduism. Mukherjee very much said all this but then also argued that because
of centuries of intermingling, Indian culture had become composite. However,
much like Bhagwat, he also stressed that underlying the diversity in the
country there was a certain unity and this unity came through Hinduism. Thus
even though Pranab Mukherjee used the word composite, he completely erased the
history behind it. There was no mention of Maulana Madni, Maulana Azad, who
were the force behind the concept of composite nationalism. In the speeches of
both these gentlemen, Hinduism remained the core around which Indian
civilization flourished and still continues. This a-historical understanding of
Hinduism and singing paeans to the achievements of ancient India glosses over
much which was wrong in that period. From the eyes of the Dalits, there is no
glory in ancient Indian culture for the simple reason that they were treated
lesser than animals. For the Buddhists who faced persecution at hands of the
Brahmins, what is glorious about that period of Indian history? Buddhism got
reduced in the land of origins to the extent that it almost got extinguished,
thanks to a virulent form of Brahmanism.
The point of all this is that there is a
needless debate in this country that there is a fundamental difference between
the nationalism of the Congress and the RSS. The speeches of Bhagwat and
Mukherjee go a long way to show that there is a consensus on the question of
nationalism between these two political formations. The difference is just
about shades rather than of type. Thus the TV debates and the newspaper columns
which seek to point out their essential difference is definitely out of
proportion and a lazy reading of their viewpoints. More fundamentally, this
laziness is also because of the assumptions of the liberal Hindu historiography
itself. Is it simply a matter of coincidence that the RSS can switch between an
Indira Gandhi and Modi with such ease? After all, Indira was hailed as the
Durga by none other than the RSS and the congress had no objection at that
time. The point that one is making is that some of us always make a faulty
assumption about different worldviews of the Congress and the RSS. By not
launching a fundamental critique of the RSS, Pranab Mukherjee has proved that
he is a true Congressman. Those who are
disappointed in him simply do not understand the history of the Congress party.
If at all Pranab Mukherjee wanted to make a
difference, he should have talked specifically about Muslim and Dalit lynching.
In not making clear what is clearly wrong in today’s times and how it is
related to right wing Hindu ideology, he has only bestowed a certain legitimacy
on it. In such troubling times as ours, not naming the evil is tantamount to condoning
it. In the end, the speech will not be known for its content for there was
nothing original or refreshing in it. It will be best known for the optics
which it provided for all to see. The unfurling of the saffron flag, the salute
in presence of a senior congressman who many claim to be a statesman. The whole
spectacle has helped in normalizing these visuals and making them into a banal
imagery. Those who think otherwise are only fooling themselves.
Arshad Alam is a columnist with NewAgeIslam.com
6:04 PM
Moderate Islamist here
0 comments:
Post a Comment