Political Diary
New Delhi, 16
November 2021
BJP-Congress
Political Slush
YOUR HINDUTVA Vs MY HINDUISM
By Poonam I Kaushish
Politicians are an
unholy lot! They take a “holier than thou attitude” on anything and everything
be it religion or riots, scums or scams. All bhaktas of power and fanatics when it comes to protecting their
power bases. And what better way than create controversy and pontificate on
BJP’s Hindutva vs Congress’s
Hinduism.
All over former Congress
Union Minister Salman Khurshid’s alleged comparison of BJP’s Hindutva to
Islamic terror in his book Sunrise over Ayodhya: Nationhood in Our Times
wherein he referred to Sanatan Dharma
and classical Hinduism known to sages and saints “being pushed aside by robust
version of Hindutva, by all standards a political version similar to the
jihadist Islam of groups like ISIS and Nigeria’s Boko Haram of recent years.”
Even as police complaints
are filed against Khurshid in Delhi, Mumbai and Jaipur for “hurting religious
sentiments”, trust Rahul Gandhi to put his foot in his mouth and air views on
difference between Hinduism and Hindutva. “While Hinduism is not about persecuting
people belonging to different faiths, Hindutva is. Hinduism is not about
beating a Sikh or a Muslim, Hindutva of course is. Hinduism didn’t kill Akhlaq
nor does it say you should kill but I see it in Hindutva,” he asserted.
Rueing BJP-RSS
“hateful” ideology has overshadowed Congress's “loving, affectionate and
nationalistic ideology,” the Party accuses the BJP for engineering a Hindu
majoritarian communal style of politics in India by using tactics like
attempting to electorally marginalise Muslims to patronising communal violence,
especially around the emotive issue of cow protection and love jihad
Pertinently, senior
G23 Congress leaders Ghulam Nabi disagreed with Rahul’s views on Hindutva as a political ideology distinct from
composite culture of Hinduism, but comparing Hindutva with ISIS and Jihadist
Islam is factually wrong and an exaggeration. Privately many in Congress circles fear
Rahul’s take might fan debates which could go against the Party and would help
BJP in the run up to Assembly polls, especially in UP and Uttarakhand.
The BJP lashed out at
its rival for “weaving a web” against
Hindus, calling Ram bhakts demons and
working the laboratory against Hindu religion by using terms like Hindu Taliban,
Saffron terror. “Typically, the Congress as is its want in indulging in
appeasement politics. What has happened
to Jehnu Dhari Rahul who visited
temples in the run-up to various Assembly polls?” The Congress is a ‘Muslim Party’ part of the “tukde-tukde gang” which protects
terrorists and is “working on Pakistan’s agenda” and belongs there.
Undeniably, we are watching cut-throat communalism in the
garb of Hinduism against Hindutva at work. Whereby, our netas have made nationalism and the Hindu-Muslim vote-bank the tour de force of politics. With every leader propounding his self-serving
recipe of ‘communal’ harmony harbouring the same intention: To keep their
gullible vote-banks emotionally charged so that their own ulterior motives are
well-served. Never mind, the nation is getting sucked into the vortex of
centrifugal bickerings.
Questionably, is
Hindutva same as Hinduism? According to the Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Hindutva
as defined in the classic statement of its ideology, is the “culture of the
Hindu race” where Hinduism is but an element and "Hindu dharma is a religion practiced by Hindus
as well as Sikhs and Buddhists.” The Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World
Religions, Hindutva is a concept of “Indian cultural, national, and religious
identity. The term conflates a geographically based religious, cultural, and
national identity: a true ‘Indian’ is one who partakes of this ‘Hinduness.’
In the early 1920s
RSS ideologue Sarvarkar wrote the Essentials of Hindutva whereby he sought to
define these as common nation (rashtra),
common race (jati) and common culture
or civilisation (sanskriti). Indian culture
as a manifestation of Hindu values; this concept grew to become a major tenet
of Hindu nationalist ideology.
He differentiated
between Hinduism and Hindutva. Hinduism, according to him, was only a part of
Hindutva. It had nothing to do with religion or rituals. The term in English
which came closest to the one he was using, was perhaps Hinduness. As a
principle, Hindutva formed the basis of India’s national character, he
maintained.
Interestingly, he defined
his idea of a Hindu resurgence in political terms, not religious. The nation,
he said, was based on the unifying Hinduness of its people. Hindutva refers to “cultural
nationalism” and is “not a religious or theocratic concept.” He called as much
for a combative spirit as a cohesive one, if India were to retain its essence,
which in his opinion was its Hindu civilization and Hindu way of life.
Besides, Hindutva and
Hinduism have been a part of several Supreme Court judgments. In 1966 the Court
held, “Hinduism is impossible to define and is complex. Historically it has an ‘inclusive
nature’ and can be described as a way of life. The theist and atheist, sceptic
and agnostic may all be Hindus if they accept the Hindu system of culture and
life. Hindutva is not hostility to any organised religion nor does it proclaim
its superiority of any religion to another.”
In 1995 the Court
further ruled, “Ordinarily, Hindutva is
a state of mind and is not to be equated with or understood as religious
Hindu fundamentalism ... it is a fallacy and an error of law to proceed on the
assumption ... that the use of words Hindutva or Hinduism per se depicts an attitude hostile to all persons practising any
religion other than the Hindu religion ... It may well be that these words are
used in a speech to promote secularism or to emphasise the way of life of the
Indian people and the Indian culture or ethos, or to criticise the policy of
any Party as discriminatory or intolerant.”
Further, Hindutva has not been a static and monolithic
concept, rather its meaning and context, text and subtext has changed over
time. In the colonial era formulation of neo-Hinduism added a sense of “ethnicity”
to the original “Hinduness” meaning of Hindutva. Post-Independence, it has aligned two different axes: religion
vs culture and nation vs State. Plainly, Indians have tried to
align themselves to Hindutva’s culture and nation axes.
Clearly, in a milieu
of competitive democracy politics
based on religion has better chance of polarising voters. Tragically, our netas seem to suffer no sense of guilt or qualms of conscience
by fanning the religious quick
sand, forgetting the State has no religious entity. None care if it is destructive
and stokes religious ferment thereby not only further dividing people on creed
lines but is also antithetical to hope of narrowing India’s burgeoning
religious divide.
Our leaders need to
remember that India is a mammoth
pluralistic society of one billion plus people
with a billion views and one cannot curtail people’s political beliefs. Time they thought beyond vote-bank
politics, stopped playing political ping-pong with the aam aadmi’s
thinking and looked at the perilous implications of
their decisions instead of using it to polarize citizens for its vote bank.
Importantly, in this dog
whistle politics no quarter should be given to those who fan hatred among
people and communities. Be it a Hindutva Pandit or a Hinduism Purohit. In the ultimate, the way forward is to desist
from acerbic political slush and reckless pursuit of political nirvana! --- INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|