The muslim in ‘Hindu Rashtra’(Part I)
My parting thoughts (in two instalments) on Hindu Rashtra .
Earlier, I wrote that the symphony of Hindu Rashtra is a PlayPause, playing to a crescendo when elections are around ,and breathers in between. As polls are mostly around, the span of pauses, the diminuendos, are getting shorter. I also noted that if the call for Hindu Rashtra is not about vote bank politics it is equally not about making better Hindus. Or about empowering Hindus as they already hold all levers of power. What else may account for the zealot’s infatuation with it ?
But first, who is a ‘Hindu’ and what meaning is given to the term ‘Rashtra’ ? The broadest interpretation of ‘Hindu’ by partisans is of one believing in any indic God or not believing in any God at all, an atheist . ‘Rashtra’ is an association of people. So a Hindu Rashtra is peopled by believers in Gods born, conceived and worshipped in India. The God may be Brahminic, Arya Samaji , Basava, tribal, caste specific, Buddhist, Jain, or Sikh, it doesn’t matter so long as He ‘dwelled’ in ‘Bharat’ or the starry dome enveloping it.
So, where is the elephant in the room ? It is in the clubbing of disparate, at points antithetical, indic traditions, under one generic term Hinduism. Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Lingayats, Kabirpanthis, Tantrics and like differ widely in their traditions inasmuch as they worship differently, have different conceptions of divinity, of living existence ,and of human salvation. Though there is a semblance of affinity manifest in a common outlook on life and certain social beliefs, cultural traditions show much diversity as well. Shoveling them into the same cart blurs the line between religion and culture, a process further facilitated by an innate propensity of Hindus to subscribe to multiple traditions. For example, I do offer prayers at prominent dargahs, gurdwaras, Buddhist monasteries and Jaina shrines whenever the occasion arises.
The next step for its proponents comes easy. Reductionism. Having ‘forged’ a ‘unity’ through an assumed ‘common way of life’ the elephant in the room is now extruded. This cultural substrate is a priori invested in all - an extrapolation wholly presumptuous. Then the ‘immemorial past’ in the nebulous time-space falling between history and pre-history is selectively recalled to posit, ‘rashtra existed from vedic times based on a view of life shared by all people living in Bharat evolving a unique way of life.’ Forgotten in the process is the bewildering array of ways of life then prevailing among the vast majority of inhabitants – Aryans, tribes, aborigines, Dravidians, Harappans, the ethnically distinct North-Eastern tribes. There never was one way of social life in the length and breadth of the realm, only, invoking the metaphor of a pizza, an evolving similitude in the top dressing provided by Brahminism, to be more precise Sanatana Dharma, on bases of different sizes and shapes. The cultural differences even today are stark. But it goes to the credit of Brahminism that the extension of its footprints deep into the hinterland was accompanied by assimilation of local deities into the vedic pantheon and local traditions as ‘folk Hinduism’.
We are a proud, ancient civilization that has held together for millenia. Only, because of unity in diversity, only because that unity came from a unique composition in a cultural crucible into which poured very many different ways of life, not from a unity in uniformity. It is incomprehensible why later non indic religious traditions aren’t supposed to flow into that very same potpourri .
Because the ideological bases of Hindu Rashtra 'others' minorities it emboldens zealots to spew exhortations like, minorities must end “their separate existence to merge in the Hindu race, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu Rashtra ,claiming nothing ,deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment -not even citizen’s rights” . Another writes much the same prescription, “either merge themselves in the national race and adopt its culture ,or to live at its mercy so long as the national race may allow them to do so and to quit the country at the sweet will of the national race”.
Shyama Prasad Mukherjee made no bones of his avowed mission-to ‘nationalise’ all non Hindus : KS Sudarshan lamented ,’we need to Indianise their faith’: Bala saheb Deoras, ‘one nation one culture’: Manmohan Vaidya says, ‘There are many religions in India but only one dharma as there is only one way of life.’ And with that all conventional wisdom about secularism goes for a toss. And emerges a new form-Political Hinduism.
Wherefrom springs such deep- seated animus, particularly towards Muslims? More baffling now that they no longer lay claim to political, social ,religious supremacy that could disturb the equipoise of the majority.
To the partisans of Hindu Rashtra I commend these words of caution from a very ‘right’ leaning statesman, Rajaji ,
“the monotypist is a fool to believe his creed of uniformity will make for happiness”