Ever since the triumph of Narendra Modi in May this year, there
has been a sense of a different kind of ‘communalism’ among politicians, media
and the populace. All kinds of remarks have been made which look funny but
there are not. Concepts like All Indians Are Hindus, Hinduism is the character
of India, Love Jihad, Madrasas are schools of terrorism, and latest revelation
that slaughter houses are funding terrorism in India- they all have gained
immense currency in Modified era.
To say that all Indians are Hindus could have been true in pre-medieval
India but to preach such a
theory in the second decade of 21st century is anything but the true reflection
of India.
The term Hindu originated as a territorial concept but in the last almost one millennium
the term has acquired a religious connotation and to still link it with
territory only would be negating India's history of past one thousand years
during which we built monuments like red fort from the ramparts of which a proud
Narendra Modi delivered his maiden Independence Day speech.
The word Hindu meant nothing to ancient or so to say to original
Hindus. They thought it a corrupt version of Sindhu, which they worshipped as
the giver of life and food. And, in that sense of term accepting and respecting
the word Hindu would be an affront to the beliefs of the ancestors of India.
Secondly, Hindu refers to a region which is now beyond our control
and in the past 67 years, we have come to the terms of this new reality. And,
given the state of affairs of Pakistan,
we are happy to see the land purged long ago. Meanwhile, the term itself has
ceased to carry the territorial meaning and now it solely represents only one
institutionalized religion. Interestingly, the precursor to Hinduism was not
institutional and was essentially personal.
(In ancient India
religious beliefs were considered to be personal. Buddha attempted to institutionalize
it albeit for different purpose. It is altogether a different tale that Buddhism
vanished from India.
So, the greatest effort at institutionalizing religion failed in the country).
So, even on this count enforcing ‘Hindu’ would not be bringing ancient
and traditional identity to the land and people as the concept is relatively
new and came into existence in the last one thousand years, which the
protagonists of Hindu are more than willing to wipe out from the landscape of
everyone's memory.
In a slight deviation, it would not be inappropriate to talk of
another theory of the so-called right wingers that the ancestors of Muslims
were Hindus. It has two interesting facets. One, we know the term Hindu did not
exist in India before the
advent of Islam in India.
They were happy with what they were. They didn't need any new identity. So, the
very premise is wrongly worded. Secondly, it is wrong on the part of the Muslims
to deny their ancestral link.
It is impossible to have the entire lot of Muslims migrating from
other parts of the world into India.
Long before the Muslims became rulers in various parts of India, there were enough Muslims in India and the belief had rooted itself in India- through
traders and mendicants. This is why the general populace didn't revolt when
Islamic intruders enforced their rule and belief. People were already
acquainted with the new belief system. They didn't consider it foreign.
So, for the aam aadmi only rulers changed, as we saw in 1947. But,
for some extremely illogical yet unknown reasons the Muslims, in general, don't
admit that their ancestors belonged to this very land and changed their belief
which offered them better terms of living in a highly stratified society. It is
baffling why so many highly placed Muslims feel pride in tracing their ancestry
to a land outside India.
These are complicated equations, which have been made more
incomprehensible with the theory of Love Jihad. Jihad itself is being debated
world over. And, most of the explanations of the term depend on the personality
of the exponent and the side of the table s/he is sitting. The term Jihad no
longer holds significance in a civilized society because it entails violence,
physical or mental or both. May be, in the centuries gone by, it would carry
some other meaning and perception. Modern reality of jihad is repulsive.
On the other hand, word ‘Love’ has undergone a metamorphosis in
its meaning in the age of global village. Difference between lust and love has
always been thin and now in the age of instant technological mindset, barriers
are being broken, reported and known with greater frequency than ever before.
With identity by birth taking further deeper roots in general, the
instances of trans-religious community love between two individuals can easily
become an affront to any of the community-parties. Still, there could be
motivated people out there to target susceptible individuals, generally girls
because of the very nature of our society. So, whether it is trans-community
love or target-love, which amounts to cheating, it is always girls, women who
bear the brunt. A ruling dispensation should protect women instead of raising
the bogey of concepts like love jihad.
Another point that is being vehemently made is that madarsas are preaching
terrorism. There is none who would deny the role of preachers in spreading
terrorism within India
and without. One can listen to a few gatherings of preachers to get the sense of
alienation and resultant hatred towards the rest.
Madarsas need to be modernized and brought under regular teaching
curriculum. A regular course should be prescribed on the lines of CBSE and made
the affiliated to the board. Madarsas should have the privilege to teach Quran
and other Islamic religious text but only in addition to the regular courses.
The same policy should be adopted for other religious institutions imparting
education. So, the suggestion here is to turn Madarsas into schools with some
religious privileges.
Finally, to suggest that the slaughter houses are funding
terrorism is ridiculous. The Minister in the Modi cabinet, who targeted
slaughter houses, has been a champion of animal rights. Her objection on this
count to the very existence of slaughter houses is understandable but linking
them to terrorism smacks of communalism. India has a long history of
slaughter houses Kautilyas Arthshastra prescribes for maintaining quality in
the slaughter houses.
So, the union minister’s comment not only targets people engaged
in this vocation but also serves to dissuade non-Muslims from taking meat
trade, and thereby communalizing the entire business. This is preposterous. The
Modi government would do well to focus on the cardinal rule of governance that
the King's duty is to provide security and exact taxes in a benevolent rule.
The sooner it does, the better it is.
