This is a response to Harsh Mander’s article published on Scroll, titled “With the Ayodhya ceremony, has the inclusive India of my dreams been lost forever?”
Short answer- NO.
For long answer, read on. But before I give a point-by-point response to Harsh’s article, I’d like to add a preamble.
- I am neither a BJP nor a Congress supporter. I find the idea of citizens “supporting” political parties absurd. We should always be in the opposition- scrutinising and criticising our political parties at every turn. But Modi hatred for me does not become Rahul love, or vice versa.
Now let’s come to the meatier part, to the idea of an inclusive India. What does this mean, and where do we Indians get such ideas from? Let’s start with ‘India’ first. Certainly, it’s a geographical notion. But it’s also something more, for mere geography won’t unite people under a single banner. For there to be an inclusive, plural society, the said society must have something intrinsic that binds it. Cricket might be an example in modern times, and 200 years of British rule an earlier one. But other nations play cricket and were colonised too, so what makes India India?
There exists a continuum of languages, culture, customs, rituals, trade, science, astronomy and hundreds of other practices that not only have their origin in India, but have survived here for at least 6 millennia (in fact far longer). This. Is. India. Of the 45-odd world heritage cultures that the UNESCO recognises, 44 are extinct cultures. The 45th is India. Long before we even had words like inclusive and secular, when persecuted Jews took refuge in India, when persecuted Christians took refuge in India, and when persecuted Buddhists and Zoroastrians took refuge in India- that is India.
It has a history of being inclusive and plural even if 80% of Indians believe in someone called Rama, or at least in the sanctity of his story.
A story, mind you, that is so indelible that it is known even in Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and other south-east Asian countries. Rama or his dynasty never waged war on Thailand, never conquered it. But Thai kings consider themselves Rama’s descendants and called their old capital Ayutthaya. I do not know what Harsh’s India is, but this is the India of millions of people. There is no other nation, culture, civilisation or religion in the world with the above to its credit. When the state of Israel was formed, it formally thanked India for being the only nation that never persecuted Jews. When a non-inclusivist religion conquered most of India’s neighbours and eradicated local cultures, they found refuge in India. It’s laughable that such a nation must now be reminded of or appraised on its inclusivity by modern intellectuals.
My India is still very much an inclusive nation, so inclusive that it accommodates the fact that the only surviving major non-Abrahamic culture in the world (they either killed the rest or converted them, so much for their inclusivity) deserves its holy land, just like they have their Vaticans, Jerusalems and Meccas.
I see no violation of any secular ideal in allowing Hindus their sacred land, in the only land in the world where their religion sprung and has survived for thousands of years.
Anyone truly concerned about a plural and diverse society should welcome Hinduism finding its moors again. If they don’t, I again invite them to remind us of all the other surviving plural and inclusive cultures of the world, any that have survived the Abrahamic onslaught of the past 1400-2000 years. Where in fact do India’s inclusive ethos come from? We were last ruled by the British, who were anything but inclusive and anyone making the opposite case deserves to be laughed off. Prior to the British, we had a spate of Islamic rulers who destroyed at least 40,000 temples, burnt countless Indic texts, enslaved and sold thousands of Indians, and forced conversions to Islam. I’m certain that none possessed of intellectual honesty would consider this a period of stellar inclusivity, even if we are to accept the propaganda of Akbar and din-i-ilahi. So at least in the last 700-odd years, India’s rulership has not been inclusive to any significant degree. Clearly, for us to state that India has an inclusive ethos, we need to go further back in time to find the roots, and this takes us to the existential problem for modern secularism.
It fails to understand that secularism can co-exist with a happy appreciation for the one culture in India that can actually provides basis and psychology for it- Hinduism. You cannot derive secularism from the Quran or the Bible, though apologists do not tire of trying.
The above rant done, let us now address the article point-by-point:
“History will remember it as the day on which the bumpy but colourful and often hopeful journey of India as a humane and inclusive republic of equal citizenship was formally halted by an incumbent government.”
Pure hyperbole. Harsh or anyone will be hard-pressed to articulate a single, tangible way in which Ram Mandir hampers “equal citizenship” in India, let alone “formally halt” it. For a bit of whataboutery, ask yourself what he might say about the Uniform Civil Code, which would indeed establish equal citizenship “formally.”
“A government of unmatched hubris, rooted in an ideology of Hindu supremacism, the complete reversal of the pledges that we the people of India made in our Constitution.”
Let’s accept his right to judge the government such, we all do. Long before Modi-hubris, I’ve read much of Gandhi-hubris, Indira-hubris and Congress-hubris. Indian politics is Indian politics, and I certainly don’t think the BJP and its leaders are some epitome of benevolence. But are you really okay with him pretending that this was not wanted by millions of Hindus, and that it’s not being rejoiced today? Also, I’d like to understand how building the Ram Temple is an act of Hindu supremacism. If it is, it’s only as supremacist as the Kaaba, as Vatican and as Jerusalem. If the accusation here is that Hinduism should not have holy lands like the Abrahamic religions do, then that is not secularism.
“Was it inevitable that the iridescent dream of building a country that one day would belong equally in every way to people of every faith, caste, class, gender, language, ethnicity, colour, sexuality and ability would be smashed? And has this dream been destroyed for generations to come?”
No it wasn’t, and no it hasn’t. Stop over-reacting. In your “every” faith please explain why you so egregiously exclude the majority faith of this land. The claim is not to overturn every historic wrong. The claim is not to have 40,000 riots and/or legal battles. The claim is on the Ramjanmabhoomi, which has been ratified by the Supreme Court of this country. Funny you never mention that part.
“When the prime minister brusquely brushes aside all scruples of constitutional propriety by choosing to preside over a private programme of a Hindu temple built on the site of a medieval mosque razed by frenzied mobs, this does mark the triumph of militant and masculinist Hinduism.”
I’m sorry. In my inclusive, secular India, the prime minister can host iftaar parties also, break ramzaan fast also, light up a christmas tree also and go for bhoomi pujan also. I don’t know what your vision of a secular India is. Also, my prime minister is allowed to have personal, religious belief. It’s his fundamental right as much as it’s yours or mine.
“For over a century, supporters of organisations like the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS have fought tirelessly for a Hindu Rashtra, in which Muslims and Christians would be allowed by them to live as second-class citizens.”
Conflating of issues is an old, if amusing tactic. Nothing about Ram mandir means non-Hindus will live as second-class citizens. To pretend otherwise is sheer narrative and propaganda building. You will also be hard-pressed to find any meaningful works by RSS ideologues that call Muslims or Christians as second-class citizens. But even if they do, nothing about Ram Mandir enables that in any tangible manner. Stop editorialising.
“The movement for the Ram temple at the site of the Babri Masjid has been the single biggest spur for communal violence and killings after Partition.”
Hehe partition itself and then the plight and flight of Kashmiri Pandits be damned, eh. I see what you did there. Almost as if partition happened on some other, completely non communal lines and then Hindu nationalists sowed the seeds of communal violence. Calling for partition on the basis of a two-nation theory was been the single biggest spur for communal violence. And who was it called by? What was the second nation in this two nation theory?
“– and in the unpunished and unrepentant lawless defiance of the constitution and law by constitutional authorities.”
Okay so the Supreme Court has spoken on Ramnjanmabhoomi issue, Harsh baba. Maan lo na phir itne constitutional ho toh?
“presiding over a function for the building of a Hindu temple where a grand mosque had ben erected, which was demolished by a mob…”
You never add though that the mosque itself was built on the destroyed ruins of a temple, though I get it- this way how far in time will you go? Where will you stop? So complicated it’ll become. True. Thus, leave it to the Supreme Court, eh?
“and their forced amalgamation into a Brahmanical and militant Hinduism.”
Hyperbole again. The kind of statement that isn’t even wrong. Rama is not a brahmanical hero. He’s a Hindu and an Indian civilisational hero. The text itself is written by a reformed dacoit, features kshatriya protagonists, a brahmin villian and “indigenous tribal” sidekicks (a la “Vanara”). Unlike the Vedas, which were restricted among a limited community of Brahmins partly also to insure their fidelity in oral transmission, the Ramayana always was a people’s story, thus a thousand Ramayana’s today but a single Rig Veda still. Sure, let us discuss all of India’s real and many problems related to communal discord and extremism, from all angles. But the trope of “brahmanical” is old and frankly, boring. If your problem is against the vigilante destruction of the masjid, my initial disclaimer stands.
“Even less is anyone across most of the political spectrum willing to reassure India’s Muslims and other religious minorities that they will never concede the majoritarian subjugation of their rights and culture.”
A Supreme Court ruling isn’t majoritarian subjugation. The secular state of India has a responsibility to protect all cultures and faiths. Professing support for a holy land of its oldest and most characterising culture is not a violation of secularism. In any case, India’s track record through the Hindu Code Bills and state control of Hindu temples, without similar procedures for Christians or Muslims, clearly shows that the subjugation of rights and culture isn’t happening in the direction we’re led to believe.
“Therefore, Modi may feel justified in believing that a majority of Hindu voters in India have mandated him to advance into both law and practice a Hindu nation.”
India’s constitution and the articles of Hindu culture are utterly compatible. Find me a non-Indic faith with articles in consonance to the progressivism, secularism and tolerance of the Indian constitution. Find me words of Hindu canon in violation of the constitution. The very idea of democracy is evident in India’s pre-empire history, through the provenance of sabhas and samitis. The “kingships” of Manu, Nahusha, Bharata, Ikshvaku and indeed even Rama weren’t the monarchies of a Chandragupta Maurya and certainly not of an Aurgangzeb.
“A democracy is empty if it does not protect every minority from the potential violent dominance of the majority.”
I agree. Thus the act of criminal vigilantism is unforgivable and should not go without seeing its full course of law.
“I asked at the start of this essay: is it foretold that hate must one day, sooner or later, triumph over love?”
Lovely romantic question, very open ended. Easily answered under whatever narrative one chooses, thus entirely meaningless in any tangible context. India is a land of divide and rule. No political party, big or small, is devoid of vote bank politics. They all prop up caste, religious, linguistic and regional differences to come to power. I’m perfectly happy applying this brush on Indian politics in general. When it’s applied on a single party, as if all others stand clean, it reeks of intellectual dishonesty. When party politics and genuine national sentiment are conflated, the reek becomes conspicuous.
“In the long shadows of this temple, the country I was raised in will be increasingly obscured, seemingly lost forever.”
A very fair expression of personal view. The reality though is that in the long shadows of this temple, the country millions of Indians were raised in will find a grave psychological and cultural injury finally beginning to heal. Do not begrudge democracy when it’s not in line with your views, Harsh. That’s what Democrats in the USA do, and they side with pedophilic Joe!
“I concede that the idea of a humane country of equal citizenship has taken a bad knock. But I am convinced that it has not been extinguished.”
Funny how while I disagree with the first statement here, I completely agree with the second. To reiterate, there is no danger, imagined or otherwise, to the citizenship and rights of non-Hindus simply because Hindus have built a temple at the birthplace (imagined or otherwise) of one of their primary national heroes. The danger, as acknowledged, is of criminal vigilantism- and it feeds into India’s general law and order problems which are not ascribable to a single party or leader anyway.
To sum up, I find in Harsh’s article excessive hyperbole and the kind of Hinduphobia modern secularism is stained with. I should even confess I recognise it better now since for long years I carried it too.
We have no qualms lauding India’s inclusive ethos and plural identity, but we seem to find an ideological block in admitting where these ethos are truly rooted.
We seem to forget that were India not imbibed with its characteristic Hindu tolerance, it would likely not be a democracy at all. We forget, that everywhere else in the world that Abrahamic faiths took majority, tolerance and diversity were consigned to the dustbin. We need not look too far. Afghanistan lost its Buddhist culture, Pakistan killed its Hindu culture, and Iran’s own children, the Parsis, had to flee their country. None of that has happened in India. And to pretend that it could happen now because Hindus have reclaimed ramjanmabhoomi is either ignorant fear mongering or malicious agenda driving- I’m yet to figure out which.