March 2002 Edition
As news of the gut-wrenching carnage that stole the lives of hundreds of Gujarat's citizens trickles out, only the utterly heartless could be unmoved by the plight of those who have been left grieving for lost family members, or been orphaned at a tender age, or have been gravely debilitated for the rest of their lives. That this tragedy was not the result of a natural disaster but man-made is perhaps what is even more chilling. Undoubtedly, the burning alive of passengers in the Sabarmati Express at Godhra was a horrific and gruesome crime, but that it may lead to such barbaric acts of retaliation has left even some supporters of the VHP agenda shamed and embarrassed. If the whole intent of the VHP leadership was to instill amongst the nation's Hindus a sense of dignity and pride, and to awaken the nation to the despotism of India's medieval invaders, what occurred in Gujarat in the aftermath of the Godhra slaughter will undoubtedly shift the focus to more fundamental questions - what is the essence of the Indian nation - how did it come to be and what did it seek to promote? What are the duties of the Indian state towards the Indian people? What has been and what ought to be the role of organized religion in India? What does it mean to be a Hindu in India - who should represent them - who should articulate their aspirations? Are the hopes and dreams of all Hindus the same? How should the secular agenda be advanced - why does Indian secularism appear to be so fragile and vulnerable in recent years? What ought to be the role of India's Sikhs, Muslims, Christians and other communities in building and cementing the nation's pluralistic and secular fabric?
These are perhaps just some of the questions that need to be asked if we are to recover from what has been nothing less than a catastrophe in sociological terms. What has emerged quite unmistakably is that there exist elements amongst both Muslims and Hindus - who are seeped in feelings of sectarian hatred for the other, that their anger is uncontrollable and capable of manifesting itself in acts of cruel and reckless violence, that a spirit of vengeance clouds their wisdom and humanity, and most shockingly of all - that such elements enjoy the tacit patronage of state units of the Congress on the one hand, and of the BJP on the other.
Although there have been touching and inspiring incidents of solidarity amongst Gujarat's Hindus and Muslims, such acts of friendship and support were clearly insufficient in fending off mobs intent on seeking revenge. That the victims of their hatred may have been completely apolitical, that they may have had no connection with (or sympathy for) the perpetrators of the Godhra crime, or that they may have even sympathized with the Godhra victims was something the mobs neither considered nor cared to find out. What their actions displayed was that they were consumed by a pathological hatred of all Muslims, and that they were either unable or unwilling to draw any distinctions amongst Muslims. Even Muslims who might have had a positive orientation towards their Hindu brethren, or Muslims who may have been intensely loyal to the idea of India (as a secular and pluralistic nation) could not have counted on being spared from their wrath.
Time and again, RSS ideologues have stated that they bear no ill-will against Indian Muslims willing to integrate into the mainstream of Indian society - that their quarrel was only with those Muslims who were aggressively demanding special religious rights, harbored pro-Pakistani or pan-Islamic feelings that ran counter to the Indian national interest and hurt the sentiments of India's Hindus. But what was meted out on too many of Gujarat's Muslims were acts of random terror. Gujarat's Muslims found themselves at the receiving end for merely existing - for merely being who they were by birth.
Although it may be difficult in all cases to pinpoint exactly who participated in the carnage, and who had what political affiliations, there is a general sense that members or associates of the Sangh Parivar (such as the Bajrang Dal) played a decisive role in the violence - either by initiating it, or by not doing enough to prevent it. But regardless of the veracity of such assertions, the claim (by leaders of the RSS or the VHP) that they do not harbor any ill-will towards Muslims, but only wish to rectify historic wrongs will not be taken seriously for many years to come. Moreover, the net effect of such terror will simply increase the polarization amongst communities that may already be feeling weak and helpless. Rather than facilitate their greater integration into the Indian mainstream, such acts of indiscriminate violence will simply alienate communities further.
Because almost everyone believes that the perpetrators of the violence were part of the Hindutva movement, and since there is a perception that BJP's Gujarat state machinery was tardy in controlling the mayhem, the role of Islamic terrorist and sectarian organizations operating in India, as well as the nexus of the Congress with under-world dons and Islamic chauvinist and extremist elements will probably no longer attract the careful scrutiny that may have been appropriate. For instance, Vir Sanghvi in an article in the Hindustan Times had chastized so-called "secular" media analysts for their one-sided and asymmetric reports on the Godhra massacre. He had also quite effectively challenged the view that such an act could have occurred spontaneously, or merely as an over-reaction to Muslim-baiting by sloganeering VHP volunteers.
Not only members of the Sangh Parivar, but many other neutral Indian nationalists have been highly frustrated with India's "secular" academia and media pundits. There has been a growing impression in the country - even amongst those who wish to have nothing to do with any Muslim-baiting agenda, that too many of India's so-called "secular" intellectuals have been all too willing to condone acts of terror committed by externally-funded Islamists, and have dressed up the decade-long wave of sectarian and separatist terror in Jammu and Kashmir in the garb of "alienation from Delhi" (as though the brutal killings of migrant workers, pilgrims and ordinary villagers could be condoned, and the utterly reactionary agenda of the Kashmiri religious fundamentalists and separatists could be glossed over).
Many have felt that the supposed guardians of secularism in India, i.e. the "secular" elite do not seem to comprehend that in order to preserve the legitimacy of Indian secularism amongst all sections of the Indian public, there cannot be double standards in the application of secular principles.
But the vicious reaction against unarmed and helpless Muslims in Gujarat will now cause most Indians to focus once again on the reactionary agenda of the Sangh Parivar. One of the biggest miscalculations of the Hindutva brigade has been to treat the nation's Hindus as a monolithic mass - capable of being aroused by common myths and symbols. And that once so mobilized, they will all blindly and mechanically accept a Muslim-baiting political agenda.
While it is probably true that the majority of India's Hindus do not subscribe to the highly romanticized and prettified view of the Islamic invasions presented by historians such as Irfan Habib (and others of the same school of Indian history), they are also not inclined to view the Islamic period of Indian history with the kind of venom and hatred that seeps into the writings of most Hindutvadi scholars.
It is to their credit that many Hindus have adopted a more nuanced and circumspect view of the Islamic reigns. They are far more likely to concur with the view of more neutral scholars of Indian history - that while there is little doubt that the raids and attacks by Islamic interlopers led to massive cultural destruction and numerous atrocities on the Hindu population, Islamic rule was eventually able to evolve and indigenize, allowing the flowering of a composite culture and civilization during which Indian craftsmanship reached dazzling heights. Even as they might accept that during periods of Islamic rule, Hindus may have faced discrimination as a class and that many native traditions were eclipsed by literary and cultural imports from outside India, they are nonetheless willing to admire and appreciate India's surviving Islamic architecture and the beauty of Indian artifacts produced in the Islamic courts. They are not willing to disown in it's entirety the Indian Islamic legacy as some on the Hindutva extreme demand.
But of even greater importance is that while they may understand or even sometimes sympathize with the fervent emotional reactions that centuries of Islamic conquest have created amongst some Hindu militants, they do not identify with any campaign that involves retaliation or retribution. In this regard, they are much more likely to agree with the proposition that too much time has passed for any campaign of vengeance to be ethically or morally valid. They do not believe that the crimes of a generation long gone (of invaders and conquerors) should be allowed to taint a generation of contemporary Muslims - especially those that are generally well-integrated into Indian society. They are also likely to be sympathetic to suggestions that most ordinary Muslims were not party to the actions of the invaders, and hence Muslims as a class cannot and should not be held responsible for such periods of Indian history - no matter how onerous or damaging they may have been.
For most Hindus, the random and ghastly nature of the assaults on Ahmedabad or Baroda's Muslims has led more to revulsion and disgust. For long, saner elements of the Sangh Parivar had tried to distance themselves from the more unsavory voices in the Hindutva Brigades by arguing (and often quite cogently and convincingly) that it was hypocritical to demand of aggressive Hindutvadis to exercise restraint, but then turn a blind eye to the plight of Hindus forced to flee the Srinagar valley. They had opined that if India's "secularists" expected Hindus to show concern for Indian Muslims they couldn't then be utterly indifferent to Hindus being terrorized in Bangladesh. They had demanded that socially influential "secular" Indians demonstrate their own sincerity and commitment to the principles that they claimed to hold dear and wished all others to follow. For any social principle to be accepted as universally applicable, they asserted that there must be a sense and perception that the principle applies fairly, and even-handedly across communities, that it neither privileges one community, nor disenfranchises another.
But in the aftermath of such mayhem, who will pay attention to such grievances? It is undoubtedly true that secularism cannot simply be a one-way street - one community cannot be expected to practice exemplary behaviour towards others, it must also receive reciprocity, or at least neutrality from others. Such a posture, in sociological terms is naturally untenable. But can any Hindutvadi now claim that it has only been Hindus defending "genuine" secularism in India? India's secular elite may have erred gravely in failing to applying secular principles equally and across the board - but the more serious issue is that the Hindutvadi mobs that went on a rampage in Gujarat (and earlier in Mumbai) displayed a level of hatred and inhumanity that cannot be an acceptable part of any civilized society. To quote an oft-repeated phrase - "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones".
It is now inevitable that the entire Hindutva agenda will come under the microscope. For centuries, one of the enduring characters of Hinduism (not only in the subcontinent but throughout Asia) has been to resist and thwart any authoritative attempt at clerical or political centralization. Hinduism has thrived on local and regional variety, permitting a high degree of personal autonomy. Hindu scholars have often taken pride in how unlike the Semitic faiths there is no single messiah or holy book or centralized clerical authority to marshal Hinduism's varied followers. Hindus have no single place of pilgrimage, nor do they all worship the same gods and goddesses. For some Hindus, god is a very abstract metaphysical concept - for others it finds representation in a variety of pagan, animistic or totemic forms. There are also Hindus who are avowed atheists (or agnostics). Yet, (in an unwitting emulation of the Semitic religions) some over-zealous Hindutvadis now wish to create a new sort of orthodoxy around an agenda that primarily holds significance only for upper caste, upwardly-mobile and patriarchal Hindus.
Ram Bhakti is just one amongst several streams of Hindu consciousness. It cannot be represented as a core or defining tradition of Indian Hinduism. It can only coexist with other currents in a spirit of mutual tolerance and respect. Unfortunately, this is something too difficult to do for both the leadership and the followers of the militant Hindu organizations.
Most Indians happen to like the amorphous character of Hinduism and don't wish it to change. They particularly don't wish India's Hindus to turn into religiously indoctrinated automatons. In fact, many Hindus rightly believe that religion is a deeply personal matter that should never be politicized, and certainly not be turned into a tool for arbitrary violence against anyone else.
Perhaps most troubling for the Hindutvadi campaigners is how many Indians are turning away from religion entirely. For most Indians, one of their primary goals is to figure out how to make their lives better, and how to ensure that the nation's politicians understand that to be their fundamental and non-negotiable wish. Aggressive supporters of the Ram Mandir campaign seem to be oblivious of poll after poll, that suggest that the majority of Indians have indicated that they wish to see neither a mosque, nor a temple built in the disputed site. Instead, they'd rather see a hospital, or school, or public library or some such secular institution erected at the troubled site. Even those who might agree that the construction of a mosque in Ayodhya by Babar was an act of insensitivity and provocation - rectifying this historic wrong is simply not very high on their agenda. In the recent UP elections, voters couldn't have made their voices heard any more decisively. Over 70% of them exercised their preferences for parties that have entirely rejected the Mandir agenda.
Rather than accept the people's verdict, they have persisted with their demands as though they have a popular mandate for their platform. While the VHP clearly enjoys some degree of support in parts of Gujarat, this support does not extend uniformly throughout the country. It is therefore a mark of the VHP's belligerence and contempt for India's poor and struggling masses that they don't wish to understand their priorities. For most of India's Adivasis, Dalits and other poor OBCs - who have yet to be provided anything even remotely resembling equal opportunities in the field of housing, education, employment, or healthcare - the notion that they should have to sacrifice for an agenda that involves obscurantist myth-making and communal retribution is simply absurd. As it is the masses have been doubtful of the VHP's claim that a 'Ram-Rajya' was around the corner; after Gujarat, they will now become even more skeptical of the VHP's exhortations to join in the Ram Mandir campaign.
Although the VHP (and other organs of the Sangh Parivar) have often sought to represent themselves as "nationalists" - such claims have often seemed exceedingly hollow. Considering how unforgiving the VHP has been with regards to India's Islamic conquerors, one might think the VHP might have at least some animosity towards India's British conquerors who left a much more devastated nation. If the taxes on the Indian peasantry during the Mughals amounted to a third of the produce, during British rule, this had increased to more than half. By all accounts India became much poorer during the colonial period, and during two centuries of British rule, it's economy didn't grow at all. But during the Mughal reigns, India was one of the richest countries in the world, and it's manufactured goods were treasured throughout the world. Yet, rarely has the VHP criticized colonization or demanded any sort of retribution from Britain.
In recent months, it's unabashed support for the US displays a similiar lack of awareness or concern for India's recent history. Since 1947, the US has been the prime backer of Pakistan's India-baiting military elites. In every war that Pakistan has launched against India - the pressure has always been on India to make concessions, or to retreat. While the VHP (and all other organs of the Sangh Parivar) have been quite strident in their criticism of the Congress for caving in to such pressure, when the BJP government bent to American dictates and fought the Kargil war with one arm tied behind it's back (by not crossing the LOC), it was disingenuously paraded as a great "victory".
For over a decade, India has been the victim of a series of terrorist acts emanating from Pakistani soil, but prior to September 11, neither Britain nor the US had even bothered to express diplomatic support for India, let alone chastise the Pakistani government for letting loose a campaign of terror against India. Just months prior to the its war against the Taliban, the US had presented the Taliban government with a grant of over 40 million dollars without any regard for how the the Taliban government had been training terrorists for Jihad in Kashmir.
But the VHP who hasn't an ounce of forgiveness even for India's ordinary Muslims has found it remarkably easy not only to forgive all such betrayals against India, but to even extend unconditional support to the US in it's supposed war on "terrorism". After Sep. 11, leaders of the VHP promised their cadres that India's support to the US would be soon reciprocated. But consider how soon after the Dec 13 attack on parliament, the US first needled India to present the evidence against Pakistan. The VHP (and the RSS) had endorsed the US war without any demand for evidence, and in any case, the US had not presented any evidence to the world before launching it's own military campaign in Afghanistan. When the Indian government announced rather mild diplomatic sanctions against Pakistan and massed troops on it's own border to defend from Pakistan's repeated cross-border firings and terrorist infiltrations - the US once again called on India to "exercise restraint" and to help "reduce tensions". One would think that any genuine friend of India who had just seen fit to launch a war against the Taliban - supposedly for sheltering terrorists might at least endorse India's very limited steps against Pakistan. But on the contrary. Even as the US had exercised no restraint, and had done nothing to reduce tensions in the region, it expected India to not even act defensively in its own interest.
If the US were supposedly responding as a "friend" to Indian concerns regarding Pakistan - it is remarkably odd how Pakistan hasn't bothered to turn in even a single terrorist to the Indian government, and has now announced a general amnesty for the few Jehadi leaders it had rounded up just a month ago. Still, the VHP and the rest of the Sangh Parivar continue to foist this myth that the US has become India's new "best friend". In fact, it may be worth pointing to the considerable body of circumstantial evidence that suggests that the US has actively intervened to prevent any moves towards rapprochement and reconciliation between India and Pakistan. Some Indian analysts have even suggested that the Kargil invasion may have been instigated by the CIA in order to put a halt to the growing thaw between the two nations. It is worth recalling that the Kargil invasion took place just as Pakistan's former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Prime Minister A. B. Vajpayee had concluded a very successful summit in which the issue of Kashmir had been placed on the back-burner, and there were moves to develop normal trade ties and expand cultural exchanges between the two nations. The quiet satisfaction and alacrity with which the US Pentagon welcomed General Musharraf's military coup strengthens the view that Washington was happy to be rid of an India-friendly Prime Minister in Pakistan.
Since then key officials in the US administration have repeatedly described General Musharraf as a "moderate", a "trusted friend", an "important ally", and a "partner" in the war against "terrorism". Time and time again, some Hindutva-identified ideologues have rightly berated India's woolly-headed journalists and social scientists for being too forgiving of Pakistan's ruling elite. It is odd how they can't demand at least as much from the US and Britain who they repeatedly describe as India's "natural allies" ? Have they forgotten their own statements that India's partition was an act of unprecedented terror? When have these so-called "natural allies" of India ever expressed sorrow or regret for the creation of Pakistan and their close and consistent relationship with it's military elites?
It should also be noted how the VHP's unrestrained enthusiasm for the US runs at odds with the Swadeshi Jagran Manch's criticism of the WTO regimes, of reckless privatization that hands over key national assets to foreign monopoly interests and of economic policies that favor American and British trans-nationals over the interests of Indian consumers? There are so many ways in which US policy either directly or indirectly undermines Indian interests. Yet, the VHP remains more concerned about vilifying the entire Indian Muslim community.
While it is unfortunate that most Indians are not terribly well-educated on how India continues to be treated unfairly by the world's imperial powers, those who are aware of US double-standards in the subcontinent will naturally find the VHP's utterances regarding the US either ridiculous or even treacherous. Even those who may be unsure or confused, aren't convinced of the merit of the Parivar's quisling-like endorsement of the US. Although the opposition to the BJP-led NDA government hasn't generated much confidence in how they'd deal with US machinations or Pakistan's insidious provocations any better, the Sangh Parivar's "nationalist" claims have become more and more suspect (notwithstanding all the bombast to the contrary).
For all these reasons, the credibility of the entire Hindutva movement is at a particular low. And unless their leadership calls for serious introspection and clearly recognizable rectification of past errors, it is likely that the Indian masses will treat the soldiers of Hindutva with ever greater distrust and disdain.
At the same time, it is crucial that forces that have been pandering to Islamic extremism - that have approached the whole question of India's secularism in a distorted and unrealistic way also engage in some re-evaluation of their past approach. The politics of political opportunism especially needs challenging. The Congress (and others who attempt to extract Muslim votes at the cost of principle or national interest) - all need to evaluate their own role in fuelling the communal cauldron.
In fact, our greatest homage to those that died in the tragedies of Gujarat would be to expend greater effort in building an India where there is genuine respect and camaraderie between all of India's communities. If it means taking the nation to a new and more equitable secular milieu - then let us do so without making concessions to the evil sorcerers of organized religion that have for too long tried to divide people, and keep them in a state of ignorance and bondage to outdated beliefs and practices. If this requires creating new political organizations, let it be so. Indian secularism needs to be invigorated - so that all sectarian and phony revivalist tendencies are isolated and marginalized. And the nation can get back to it's most essential task - that of preserving it's delicately forged unity, and serving those needs of the public that simply cannot be met through individual or private effort.
Also see: Ensuring Secular Harmony in India - Searching for Answers
Godhra - a Pakistan-initiated Conspiracy?
Secularism in the Context of the Two-Nation Theory - Hypocrisy in the Pakistani Media and Crimes against Minorities in Bangladesh
Back for other selections from South Asian Voice for other articles on issues confronting India and the region.
Also see South Asian History or Topics in Indian History for relevant essays that shed some light on the history of the subcontinent.
(If you liked our site, or would like to help with the South Asian Voice project and help us expand our reach, please click here)