[Reader-list] Amaranth Land Issue

[Tapas Ray]

Radhika,

Your post touches on important issues. I will address the most important 
one - indeed, the core issue - after getting the others out of the way.

1. It seems to me that if we are to be proud to be anything, it should 
be our common humanity, and not a particular religion, caste, language, 
ethnicity, etc. Because, this kind of "pride" leads to bloody conflict 
all the time. Religious pride and tolerance may coexist in you, but this 
is not universally true.

It is certainly not true that every Hindu hates Muslims, but my 
experience tells me that some in fact do. And I would be interested in 
knowing how many riots have been initiated by Muslims rampaging after 
Friday prayers, and what percentage of all riots these represent.

2. Since you are aware that the "pseudo-seculars" also play identity 
politics like the BJP, though to a different degree and in a different 
style, I think you will agree that their best interest lies in appeasing 
the majority community first and foremost, and only after that, the 
minorities. In fact, this is what they have been seen to do in practice. 
If you remember, the Babri demolition took place when Congress was 
running the government with Narasimha Rao as Prime Minister. So, it is 
wrong to say that "pseudos" like Manmohan Singh appease only Muslims. 
That is, and has to be, their second priority.

3. I do not see the connection you seem to make between being a proud 
but tolerant Hindu, on the one hand, and your anger at the all-round 
misery and discontent, on the other. Isn't this anger the natural 
reaction of anyone who has any humanity left in her/him? Has the party 
that is essentially based on Hindu pride made the slightest effort, in 
the country when it ran the national government, or any of the states it 
has ruled, to bring about any fundamental change that would help 
eliminate the sufferings and discontent?

4. As for the RSS, I would not call it a socio-cultural organisation as 
long as it has its members in the BJP at all levels - from the 
grassroots to the party's top leadership, which govern whenever and 
wherever the BJP is in power. It is a full-fledged political organisation.

5. It goes without saying, as you have pointed out, that true democracy 
must address the needs of every citizen. Since the "pseudos" play 
identity politics, they are clearly unable to live up to this ideal. But 
can the BJP do it, when its ideology is constructed around the idea of 
citizenship based on religion? Is religion-based consolidation of Hindus 
- which you support - consistent with liberal democracy? I am going to 
argue that the very logic of the Parivar's ideology disempowers both 
Hindus and Muslims, and makes violence an inalienable part of itself.

Since Hindus enjoy a numerical majority in India, the Parivar equates 
its Hindutva ideology with nationalism. But this is majoritarian 
thinking, not democratic thinking. Also, it is against our constitution. 
That little document views citizenship as something that is not related 
to any particular identity, such as religious and ethnic, and the 
political preferences of the citizen as being contingent upon various 
factors that affect her/his life.

Now, if religious, ethnic, and other kinds of identity determine these 
preferences, there can be little scope for the citizen to vote outside 
the Hindu "bloc". This acceptance of an immutable bloc means giving up 
all political choice. This, in turn, means the citizen - even a Hindu - 
is stripped of her/his political agency, thus of all rights. In this 
scheme of things, (s)he has some privileges as a member of the majority 
community, but no rights as a citizen of India.

On the other hand, Muslims and other minorities have neither rights, nor 
privileges in this scheme, unless the Hindu majority graciously throws a 
few tidbits their way. Now, if these minorities, out of sheer 
bloodymindedness, insist on having a few rights, what are the things 
they can do? Either get out of the country - which the uncles, aunts, 
nephews and nieces in the Parivar always suggest as the best way - or, 
if they refuse to do that out of their inborn perversity, try to carve 
their own country out of Indian territory. If they are willing to learn 
from the Parivar, this new country can run on the same principles as 
"mother" India, who continues to be the Parivar's possession, as any 
good wife should, after giving birth to this monster baby.

But then, neither option can be acceptable to both communities at the 
same time. The minorities don't want to get out, unfortunately. Which is 
why the Parivar provides a little encouragement now and then. Not only 
in deed but also in word. One hears things like, ‘‘Jâo Pâkistân yâ 
kabristân’’ (‘‘Go to Pakistan or to the graveyard’’), or ‘‘Let Muslims 
understand that their real safety lies in the goodwill of the 
majority’’. In this, at least, no one can accuse the Parivar of leaving 
a gap between word and deed.

It may be that they don't want to go to Pakistan, about which they have 
probably heard all kinds of bad things. So they may want their own 
country. But which family would let any monster child cut a little flesh 
out of its Bahus's body?

Result: the get-out option will be resisted by the minorities, and the 
carve-out option by the Hindu majority. Thus, the only thing that can 
possibly mediate between Hindus and Muslims (and other minorities) in 
this scenario is violence.

Tapas