Rewriting the nation state - The Hindu
Rewriting the nation state – The Hindu, March 17, 2015
The raising of
Days after Bharatiya Janata
Party Member of Parliament Sakshi Maharaj called Mahatma Gandhi’s assassin Nathuram Godse, a “patriot,” the Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha,
an ideological affiliate of the Sangh Parivar petitioned the government to provide space for installing busts
of Godse at public places across India. Describing him as ‘an irreplaceable
asset to the intellectual discourse of Hinduism’, the Mahasabha’s national
president, Chandra Prakash Kaushik, stated that, “There needs to be a thorough
investigation of the events that led to the assassination, so that vilification
of Nathuram Godse ends and the people of this country know that he was not an
assassin by choice but was forced to make the decision to kill Gandhi.” The
controversy has since moved from Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, to Tamil Nadu, where
two factions of the Hindu Mahasabha recently announced the installation of
Godse’s statue in 13 districts.
A "MUST READ-FORTHRIGHT article by Suchitra Vijayan that LAYS BARE the RIGHT WING COMMUNAL AGENDA most accurately and without MINCING ANY WORDS?!
Rewriting the nation state – The Hindu, March 17, 2015
The
Hindu
Hindu
“Hindutva
ideologues have been successful in owning Mahatma Gandhi, who dreamed of Ram
Rajya, while equally venerating Godse as a misguided patriot.” Picture shows
Chandra Prakash Kaushik, with the bust of Nathuram Godse in New Delhi. Photo:
V. Sudershan
ideologues have been successful in owning Mahatma Gandhi, who dreamed of Ram
Rajya, while equally venerating Godse as a misguided patriot.” Picture shows
Chandra Prakash Kaushik, with the bust of Nathuram Godse in New Delhi. Photo:
V. Sudershan
The raising of
Nathuram Godse’s statue is not an isolated act by fringe elements. It is a
political manoeuvre, aimed at rewriting the history of the Indian polity
Days after Bharatiya Janata
Party Member of Parliament Sakshi Maharaj called Mahatma Gandhi’s assassin Nathuram Godse, a “patriot,” the Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha,
an ideological affiliate of the Sangh Parivar petitioned the government to provide space for installing busts
of Godse at public places across India. Describing him as ‘an irreplaceable
asset to the intellectual discourse of Hinduism’, the Mahasabha’s national
president, Chandra Prakash Kaushik, stated that, “There needs to be a thorough
investigation of the events that led to the assassination, so that vilification
of Nathuram Godse ends and the people of this country know that he was not an
assassin by choice but was forced to make the decision to kill Gandhi.” The
controversy has since moved from Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, to Tamil Nadu, where
two factions of the Hindu Mahasabha recently announced the installation of
Godse’s statue in 13 districts.
The raising of Godse’s
statue is not an isolated act by fringe elements. It is a political manoeuvre,
aimed at rewriting the history of the Indian polity, and its principles of
secular, pluralistic statehood. Godse’s narrative, as told by the Hindu
Mahasabha, functions in important ways to posit Hindus and Hinduism as being
under siege and asserts the idea of India as a Hindu nation. To retell the
story of the Mahatma’s murderer, as a patriot, goes to the heart of politics
seeking to manipulate, manufacture and mobilise public support to consolidate
the power of the majority. Revisionist history strategically demands for
revenge as a form of justice to right historical wrongs committed under non-Hindu
rulers. They do this by spreading anti-Muslim and anti-minority sentiments by
rewriting history and often replacing it with myths that are clearly at odds
with reasoned historical works for public consumption.
statue is not an isolated act by fringe elements. It is a political manoeuvre,
aimed at rewriting the history of the Indian polity, and its principles of
secular, pluralistic statehood. Godse’s narrative, as told by the Hindu
Mahasabha, functions in important ways to posit Hindus and Hinduism as being
under siege and asserts the idea of India as a Hindu nation. To retell the
story of the Mahatma’s murderer, as a patriot, goes to the heart of politics
seeking to manipulate, manufacture and mobilise public support to consolidate
the power of the majority. Revisionist history strategically demands for
revenge as a form of justice to right historical wrongs committed under non-Hindu
rulers. They do this by spreading anti-Muslim and anti-minority sentiments by
rewriting history and often replacing it with myths that are clearly at odds
with reasoned historical works for public consumption.
This stratagem of rewriting
history dates back to Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, the ideologue, who articulated
the ideological foundations of Hindutva. In his 1922 essay “Hindutva: Who is a
Hindu?” he speaks of the Hindu nation as being grounded “in land, blood and
culture.” He defines the Hindu identity based on inclusion and exclusion. He
includes Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs as inheritors and partakers in the legacy
of Hinduism. But he clearly excludes Islam and Christianity as foreign
ideologies brought from outside. In 1925, he writes, “Hindu Pad Padshahi” where
he propagates Hindu-self rule, and writes about the 17th century Maratha ruler
Shivaji, who led the Marathas in a series of battles against Muslim rulers.
Savarkar transforms the local histories of Marathas into an emblematic national
struggle between the foreign conquerors and the son of the soil, mounting an
indigenous resistance. For Savarkar, his Hindu nationhood is an inclusive
“territorial, racial and cultural entity”, and in his later writings he
specifically identifies Muslims as the “paradigmatic other, and the most
persistent threat to Hindutva”.
history dates back to Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, the ideologue, who articulated
the ideological foundations of Hindutva. In his 1922 essay “Hindutva: Who is a
Hindu?” he speaks of the Hindu nation as being grounded “in land, blood and
culture.” He defines the Hindu identity based on inclusion and exclusion. He
includes Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs as inheritors and partakers in the legacy
of Hinduism. But he clearly excludes Islam and Christianity as foreign
ideologies brought from outside. In 1925, he writes, “Hindu Pad Padshahi” where
he propagates Hindu-self rule, and writes about the 17th century Maratha ruler
Shivaji, who led the Marathas in a series of battles against Muslim rulers.
Savarkar transforms the local histories of Marathas into an emblematic national
struggle between the foreign conquerors and the son of the soil, mounting an
indigenous resistance. For Savarkar, his Hindu nationhood is an inclusive
“territorial, racial and cultural entity”, and in his later writings he
specifically identifies Muslims as the “paradigmatic other, and the most
persistent threat to Hindutva”.
“Violence manufactured
through riots and appropriating political icons are carefully enacted acts of
mobilisation.”
through riots and appropriating political icons are carefully enacted acts of
mobilisation.”
Hindutva
ideologues, following Savarkar’s precedent, have over the past two decades
regularly invoked the history and the heritage of the national movement in
their favour. They have already done this with Sardar Patel and systematically
appropriated and retold stories of local leaders and historical figures, to
further their ideological ends. They have been successful in owning both
Gandhi, the Hindu thinker, and the Mahatma who dreamed of Ram Rajya, while
equally venerating Godse as a misguided patriot.
ideologues, following Savarkar’s precedent, have over the past two decades
regularly invoked the history and the heritage of the national movement in
their favour. They have already done this with Sardar Patel and systematically
appropriated and retold stories of local leaders and historical figures, to
further their ideological ends. They have been successful in owning both
Gandhi, the Hindu thinker, and the Mahatma who dreamed of Ram Rajya, while
equally venerating Godse as a misguided patriot.
Mobilising the Gods
Mobilising the Gods for political ends has a long chequered history in the
subcontinent. As the political movement for Indian independence took shape,
mobilising the masses through use of religion and religious symbols, became an
important political strategy employed by various factions. This included Gandhi,
who understood the value of powerful political symbols that can be used to
mobilise the country’s disparate population. He actively employed Hindu
symbols, phrases and icons towards nationalist ends – bonfires; the image of
India as a Hindu goddess; and invoking Ram Rajya as the ideal form of
governance. In India where poverty and illiteracy are rampant, these symbols
had profound political implications. While it galvanised the Hindu majority,
this political practice severely alienated Indian Muslims who were unable to
find themselves reflected in a nation defined by Hindu history, gods, symbols,
and the Gandhian ideals of Ram Rajya. It also contributed to the
communalisation process that would eventually lead to the partition of India.
Almost fifty years later, the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi campaign employed similar
strategies to mobilise popular support for its vision of Hindu nationhood. It
reintroduced and promoted Lord Ram and Ram Rajya as the symbolic centre of
Hindu India.
Mobilising the Gods for political ends has a long chequered history in the
subcontinent. As the political movement for Indian independence took shape,
mobilising the masses through use of religion and religious symbols, became an
important political strategy employed by various factions. This included Gandhi,
who understood the value of powerful political symbols that can be used to
mobilise the country’s disparate population. He actively employed Hindu
symbols, phrases and icons towards nationalist ends – bonfires; the image of
India as a Hindu goddess; and invoking Ram Rajya as the ideal form of
governance. In India where poverty and illiteracy are rampant, these symbols
had profound political implications. While it galvanised the Hindu majority,
this political practice severely alienated Indian Muslims who were unable to
find themselves reflected in a nation defined by Hindu history, gods, symbols,
and the Gandhian ideals of Ram Rajya. It also contributed to the
communalisation process that would eventually lead to the partition of India.
Almost fifty years later, the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi campaign employed similar
strategies to mobilise popular support for its vision of Hindu nationhood. It
reintroduced and promoted Lord Ram and Ram Rajya as the symbolic centre of
Hindu India.
The most consistent and
principled critique of the use of religion in the name of nationalism is found
in the writings of Rabindranath Tagore. His novel, The Home and the World (‘Ghare Baire’) dramatises how
violence and killing become requisite rituals when the individuals place blind,
uncritical nationalism on a pedestal. Tagore analysed symbols, phrases, chants
and icons employed towards nationalist ends, and the harm they could do.
Throughout his life, he consistently critiqued the use of religious symbolism
as exclusivist and sectarian in nature, warning as early as 1915 that violence
would be an inevitable and a natural consequence of the strategy of
mobilisation that uses “symbols embedded in an exclusivist cultural-religious
idiom”. His prophetic words came to be played out not once, but many times
since.
principled critique of the use of religion in the name of nationalism is found
in the writings of Rabindranath Tagore. His novel, The Home and the World (‘Ghare Baire’) dramatises how
violence and killing become requisite rituals when the individuals place blind,
uncritical nationalism on a pedestal. Tagore analysed symbols, phrases, chants
and icons employed towards nationalist ends, and the harm they could do.
Throughout his life, he consistently critiqued the use of religious symbolism
as exclusivist and sectarian in nature, warning as early as 1915 that violence
would be an inevitable and a natural consequence of the strategy of
mobilisation that uses “symbols embedded in an exclusivist cultural-religious
idiom”. His prophetic words came to be played out not once, but many times
since.
H.M. Seervai, formerly the
Advocate General of Bombay, jurist and author, writing in Partition of India: Legend and
Reality, opines that M.A. Jinnah’s object was not partition but ‘parity’.
He presented his authoritative arguments after painstakingly sifting through 12
volumes of The Transfer of
Power 1942-7 documents and
historical records. It was also Seervai’s argument that Jinnah greatest fear
was Hinduisation of India and its effects on its Muslim population.
Advocate General of Bombay, jurist and author, writing in Partition of India: Legend and
Reality, opines that M.A. Jinnah’s object was not partition but ‘parity’.
He presented his authoritative arguments after painstakingly sifting through 12
volumes of The Transfer of
Power 1942-7 documents and
historical records. It was also Seervai’s argument that Jinnah greatest fear
was Hinduisation of India and its effects on its Muslim population.
Whether one agrees or
disagrees with the ‘parity theory’ advanced by H.M. Seervai is secondary.
However, it remains relevant today that we recognise that growing “religious
nationalism” is a genuine fear among the country’s minorities. The imperative
for a secular polity, where the country’s minorities have real political choice
and constitutional safeguards are crucial today, as it was in 1947. In a
secular democracy, citizenship is the civic religion. Religious nationalism is
the antithesis of this principle and excludes the notion of a secular state,
and denies equal participation of those who do not identify with the dominant
religion. Without equal citizenship, Article 15 of our Constitution that
prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race or caste becomes meaningless.
disagrees with the ‘parity theory’ advanced by H.M. Seervai is secondary.
However, it remains relevant today that we recognise that growing “religious
nationalism” is a genuine fear among the country’s minorities. The imperative
for a secular polity, where the country’s minorities have real political choice
and constitutional safeguards are crucial today, as it was in 1947. In a
secular democracy, citizenship is the civic religion. Religious nationalism is
the antithesis of this principle and excludes the notion of a secular state,
and denies equal participation of those who do not identify with the dominant
religion. Without equal citizenship, Article 15 of our Constitution that
prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race or caste becomes meaningless.
Violence manufactured
through riots, destruction of religious sites such as churches, organising
religious conversion camps, beef bans, rewriting textbooks, censoring works of
history, literature and fiction that challenge the ‘Hindu’ version of history,
appropriating political icons, and raising monuments are all carefully enacted
acts of mobilisation aimed at constructing the Hindu nation. This disastrous
marriage between religion and nationalism will ultimately subvert the values
that have held this nation together, because it substitutes with murderers and
symbols the place meant for substantive values of secular statehood, equality,
and justice. India’s future lies in pluralism, parity, reasonable and
principled cosmopolitanism and not with settling scores in history.
through riots, destruction of religious sites such as churches, organising
religious conversion camps, beef bans, rewriting textbooks, censoring works of
history, literature and fiction that challenge the ‘Hindu’ version of history,
appropriating political icons, and raising monuments are all carefully enacted
acts of mobilisation aimed at constructing the Hindu nation. This disastrous
marriage between religion and nationalism will ultimately subvert the values
that have held this nation together, because it substitutes with murderers and
symbols the place meant for substantive values of secular statehood, equality,
and justice. India’s future lies in pluralism, parity, reasonable and
principled cosmopolitanism and not with settling scores in history.
(Suchitra Vijayan is a
barrister, political theorist and a writer.)
barrister, political theorist and a writer.)
My TAKE on the above article by Suchitra Vijayan in The Hindu, Dated March 17, 2015
Rewriting the nation state – The Hindu, March 17, 2015
By SUCHITRA VIJAYAN
By SUCHITRA VIJAYAN
A "MUST READ-FORTHRIGHT article by Suchitra Vijayan that LAYS BARE the RIGHT WING COMMUNAL AGENDA most accurately and without MINCING ANY WORDS?!
Rewriting the nation state - The Hindu http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article7000179.ece
A "MUST READ-FORTHRIGHT article tht LAYS BARE th RIGHT WING COMMUNAL AGENDA?!
Rewriting the nation state - The Hindu http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article7000179.ece
Rewriting the nation state - The Hindu http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article7000179.ece
No comments:
Post a Comment