The Idea of 'Humanity'

“Hindutva rashtra ki sanchetna hai. Is par prahaar mahapralay ko aamantran hai”. This is a statement that figures on the front page of the official website of the new Chief Minister of UP, Yogi Adityanath. I will attempt to unravel and decipher this statement in order to understand its meaning and import better. The first thing that is clear from the above statement, and its appearance on the front page of the official website of the Chief Minister is that this statement reflects the core ideology of the man. Thus, it is clear that he is a firm believer in Hindutva ideology and believes it to be the edifice on which the entire superstructure of the Indian society rests. This ideology essentially wants to establish India as a Hindu nation.

What does a ‘Hindu nation’ actually stand for? In effect, this would mean an official recognition to India being a natural place of abode for all those belonging to the Hindu religion. All the others may be allowed to reside in this nation, provided they accept the principle of India being a ‘Hindu Rashtra’. This would, in turn, mean that the State would no longer remain equidistant from all religions. Any practice sanctioned by the Hindu religion would have to be accepted and respected by each and every citizen of the nation. As an example, cow slaughter could be banned in the nation for the sole reason that the Hindu religion did-not permit it, and each and every citizen would have to abide to by the ban.

Would Hindu nation mean that all the citizens of the nation belonging to any other religion would cease to be Indian citizens? Definitely not. All the citizens of India would still continue to the citizens of the State. However, all the citizens, Hindus and non-Hindus alike, would have to accept that Hinduism was the national religion, that laws and rules that were made to encourage, protect or promote any religious practice of the Hindus would have to be equally obeyed by all as the law of the land and that the State was free to mete out any treatment that it saw fit to other religious denominations. In a Hindu State, if the State made a law that it would henceforth be necessary for all the citizens to practice the Hindu religion, it would have to be followed by one and all, or else they could choose to leave the State. Alternatively, the State could choose to allow everyone the freedom to practice their religion with the caveat that they would respect all the practices of Hindu religion and not come in the way of any such practice or ritual of the religion. In other words, all the non-Hindu religious communities would be at the mercy of the Hindu nation, to be treated as deemed fit by the incumbent powers. Thus, the success of Hindutva ideology may not necessarily lie in mass exodus of non-Hindu religious communities from the nation. The only condition necessary to be fulfilled may be ensuring that the claim of India being a Hindu nation is accepted by all those residing in India, and consequently, any thought or action that is, in the eyes of the State, detrimental to the Hindu religious beliefs, is not performed by any citizen of the nation. In such a situation, the State could, for example, impose beef ban, make Yoga compulsory for all, uplift Bhagvata Gita to the status of the National Scripture etc., and impose fines and punishment in law for not adhering to these strictures, without facing criticism on at least the account of diluting the secular credentials of the nation, because the nation would no longer remain secular (officially).

There would be umpteen difficulties though, if India became a Hindu nation. These would arise out of the complexities associated with the Hindu religion itself, and which were aptly pointed out and elaborated upon by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in his writings. To begin with, how would one define who is a Hindu and who isn’t? Which scriptures would one choose to follow and adhere to, given the existence of multitudes of them, all with different messages and interpretations of being a Hindu? Which practices would be defined as being the core practices of the religion, and which would be defined to be peripheral and non-mandatory? There would arise many such questions and in all practicality, the interpretation of the ruling power will have to be accepted as the legitimate interpretation and be followed as the law of the land. In such a scenario, the physical presence or absence of the people of non-Hindu religions would not matter. They would be welcome to reside in India so long as they adhered to the law of the Hindu nation. However, if anyone dared to question or raise one’s voice, then the second part of the statement on the front page of the Chief Minister’s website would be the consequence, in his words, ‘mahapralay ko aamantran’.

In the above light, I would like to look at some of the news reports that have been very popular lately, wherein it has been reported that the Chief Minister has been holding a daily ‘darbaar’ since many years. Testimonies of many people from the Muslim religion have been provided, who have testified to the large-heartedness and secular credentials of the man. His one word of recommendation has helped them to solve many of their issues like getting reservations for train journeys, getting a booking for Haj pilgrimage etc. Many have also testified that they have been employed by him since years and have never faced any discrimination whatsoever.

Now, what is it they one can infer from these two seemingly contradictory images of the man? His own statement on the front page of his website declares Hindutva as his core ideology. On the contrary, his actions in his personal, day-to-day life, show him to be a large-hearted, helpful person towards one and all, Hindus and Muslims alike. How do we reconcile these two images of the same man? Is a reconciliation even possible?

Many of my acquaintances, on reading the news reports, have quickly jumped to the conclusion that the image of a Hindutva hardliner, projected by the media, is a purposeful attempt at maligning the man, who is otherwise a man of repute and secular credentials. The news reports have been cited as irrefutable proofs of his innocence and the guilt of the biased media people and pseudo-seculars and intellectuals in trying to tarnish his image. The only reason I beg to differ from this hurriedly arrived at conclusion is that the image of the man in public is not a figment of imagination, but a result of his own public statements, which have never been refuted by him. His website clearly declares his thoughts on Hindutva, and he is known to be very upfront with his views, nowhere trying to cloak or mask them. Why, then, the hurry to ascribe secular credentials to a man who himself is an avowed champion of Hindutva and is proud of it, far from being apologetic? Where does the need arise to try and justify him when he himself does not want to be justified?

Being pro-Hindutva, and at the same time being helpful towards everyone equally, in personal life, might not actually be as contradictory as it seems to be. Pro-Hindutva hardliners know for a fact that the numbers of non-Hindu population is so high in India that they cannot be wished away. That is why various strategies are used to mould the ‘others’ into one’s own idea of rightful existence. Hence, the movements like Shuddhi, ghar wapsi, etc. This may be just another of such strategies. Anyway, harmless and supine members of any religion or community, any number of non-questioning and malleable citizens, let them belong to any religion or caste or creed, are no problem at all for anyone. The problem arises when one starts to question, when one dissents, when one puts forward his/her views, and in such cases the Hindutva ideology is totally non-discrepant. It treats all such cases of dissents with one lens, and brands them all as anti-nationals, irrespective of their caste, creed, colour or religion.

The clash of ideologies here is much deeper. On the one hand is the one for which the Chief Minister openly stands, where one religion and its people are thought of as superior to all of the rest. Majority of the political community and majority of the people of the nation also are staunch supporters of this ideology, some overt and many other covert. This ideology refuses to see the human being behind the cloaks of caste, creed, religion, gender and all such human-made differences. On the other side is the one where a human being is thought of just that, a human being, where there is no requirement of associating a face with a religion, a caste, a region, a gender and all such differences that divide humans. This is the ideology of HUMANITY, and I am its unequivocal supporter.

The 'Hidden' is Revealed

Yogi Adityanath is the new Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. As unbelievable as this might sound, this is a fact that cannot be wished away. Yogi Adityanath has been quite in the news owing to the multitude of statements he has made time and again, clearly announcing his religious preferences and his attitude towards other religious communities and the people of those communities. Most of these statements were so vitriolic and indefensible that many of the members of the core Hindutva ideology groups also had a tough time justifying these statements. The only justification that was heralded was that he was only one of the fringe elements and was far removed from the mainstream ruling party and its development agenda. It was also explained that the ruling party and the current Prime Minister had only growth and development of the nation on their minds (which had been a non-starter due to decades of mis-rule and corruption by the pseudo-seculars) and such ‘fringe elements’ were only to be ignored. It was also pointed out that anyone reading more into the unwillingness of the Prime Minister and the members of the ‘mainstream ruling party’ in severely castigating the now Chief Minister designate of UP, was only trying to unnecessarily exaggerate and blow things out of proportion.

The process has now begun. The path for movement of ‘fringe’ (if ever there was any) towards ‘mainstream’ has been laid down, that too, in concrete. The ‘fringe’ has been blessed, invited and welcomed into its fold by the ‘mainstream’. All the false, imaginary and artificial lines that separated the two have finally been erased purposefully. The ‘mainstream’ supporters of the ruling party and the ideology it stands for are rejoicing. The supporters at the ‘fringe’ have now suddenly been exposed. All the nuanced arguments of their thought process that they had laboriously built-up in their minds to justify to themselves and the world that the ‘mainstream’ and the ‘fringe’ was a water-tight separation, two parallel worlds that could never meet, have fallen completely flat. The ‘mainstream’ that they had so painstakingly created in their minds has finally become bold enough to throw away the cloak of neutrality and non-partisanship that it had worn till date. It has become bold enough to own up to its real agenda. The ‘hidden’ has come out in the open.

The real difficulty for the ‘fringe’ supporters now begins. Their much-beloved ‘mainstream’ party has announced its chosen path, leaving them with only two choices. One is that they too openly own up to their ‘hidden’ prejudices and biases, to their own ‘hidden’ Hindutva agenda, come out clean and then support their beloved party honestly, for what it stands and for what they stand. The second is, which they will be forced to choose, if they really were only pro-development and had no further hidden agendas, that they openly denounce this step of their beloved party and change course. This would require a courage of conviction and the dawning of an understanding that economic aspects cannot be separated from the social and the political. That no step can be seen completely in isolation from the other and judged on its own merit. That they would have to accept either the entire package or reject the whole of it.

However, what I have witnessed these past two-three days is a third path that these supporters have devised for themselves. Of continuing to persist in trying to save the false world they have built for themselves. Of putting forward arguments that are non-starters in the first place. So, it is argued now that a person deserves to be given one chance at least before writing him off, that bigger responsibilities are bound to make a person more responsible in his thoughts and actions, that the chosen one is much better and much more deserving than the alternatives, that a sweeping majority has already demonstrated the strength of peoples’ faith in the ruling dispensation and hence challenging its decision only confirms the case of ‘the grapes are sour’. Some go so far as to question one’s right of forming an opinion against a ‘Constitutional authority’ (whatever that is supposed to mean), and declaring that holding these doubts irrevocably proves one to be anti-national.

What really is it that this group of people is trying to argue? There can be only two possibilities. The first is that they are actually in favour of the complete agenda of the ruling dispensation, but overtly want to maintain that they are only pro-development and not pro-Hindutva. In this case, it is just a matter of time before they will clearly have to come out in the open, looking at the growing brazenness of their chosen party. The second is that they genuinely believe in the arguments that they are putting forward. That bigger responsibilities generally induce a sense of responsibility in an individual, and that everyone needs to be given a chance before writing them off. In this case, I have nothing more to say to them, only that, it is time that they wake up from their wishful thinking. The writing is on the wall and it is written in bold and clear letters, without an iota of doubt. And the truth, in this case too, is stranger and much more worrisome, than fiction.

Women - to be celebrated on a day?

I don’t want you to celebrate my existence on a particular day

I want you to understand that before being a woman I am a human, just as you

I don’t want you to offer me to stand ahead of you in a queue

I want you to let me stand on my own, just as you

I don’t want you to compliment me on my beauty, my style, my dress or my shoes

I want you to understand that I might also have an equally beautiful mind, and this in no way should threaten you

I don’t want you to extol my patience as my biggest virtue

I want you to understand that being impatient is as much a birthright for me as it is for you

I don’t crave your accolades for the excellent upbringing of our child

I want you to understand that motherhood is as much a joy and responsibility for me as fatherhood is for you

I don’t want you to look askance at me if I choose to not marry and live my life on my own terms

I want you to understand that marriage is as much a choice for me as it is for you

I don’t want you to take vows of protecting my dignity and my honour

I want you to create a world where the need for taking such vows no longer remains for you

I don’t want you to grant me equal status, and wear it as a sign of your virtue

I want you to understand that it is human beings who are natural creations, divided by us into me and you

I don’t want any special treatment on any day of any month of any year

I just want to live in a world where no ‘him’ feels the need to bestow special treatment on any ‘her’, and the world belongs to ‘us’, neither to me nor to you

 

The blind race towards self-destruction

Much has been commented on the Gurmehar Kaur issue. The young girl has been trolled and abused by many. Others have stood by her and appreciated her courage. The issue has occupied center stage in media (print and visual), on facebook, whatsapp groups, among politicians, celebrities and the entire nation. The crux of the views expressed by Gurmehar was that the act of war was a destructive act (a big revelation as if), that this destructive act was responsible for her father’s death, that she was opposed to use of violence (and any group that used it) in order to stifle expression of opinions contrary to one’s own and that she had understood the futility of harboring hatred towards a specific nation or community through personal experience and struggle within herself, and had since come to value peace over war and love over hatred. What is rankling my mind, after listening to the din of voices crying hoarse in order to be heard, is the issues (or non-issues) that dominate popular debates, the extent of polarization these debates can create, the level which one can attain in trying to defend one’s point of view and the role of mass media in determining the direction of a discourse.

India is a developing nation and is a part of a world which is dealing with numerous crisis situations. There are multitudinous issues that require immediate attention, which if not given, can lead to dire irreversible consequences. Visible and real climate change seems to me the foremost among these issues, which poses an existential threat to the entire world community. Depleting natural resources and increasing population is bound to result into a fierce competition among humankind, for their ownership. All this, because humankind accepted that survival of the fittest was the only theory by which one could exist, that blind competition was the only way possible by which society could be made to function effectively, that nature, earth and its resources were unlimited and at humankind’s disposal to be utilized at free will. The mantra was to aim for maximum material growth and unbridled power to rule over the world. In this mad race, everyone forgot to stop and think that even a maximum needs to have a concrete definition, that the resources are actually not non-extinguishable, that in proving one to be the fittest, one also stands the risk of being left alone in a vast universe of death and destruction, with not a soul surviving to even congratulate one on attaining the status of the ‘fittest’.

What has all of the above to do with Gurmehar Kaur? Nothing. Except that all the minds that are at work in inventing reasons to denounce her and all the minds that are at work (including mine) in trying their best to protect and support her, have loads of actual, real, concrete issues that have the capacity to destroy mankind, to work their minds on. There is no dearth of problems that are threatening humankind. Then why is it that we choose to blow out of proportion and spend days and months on issues that are actually non-issues? If a girl expresses her views against the horrors of war, against the futility of hatred, against the use of violence as a threat to silence voices, then what is it that makes one so insecure as to come all guns blazing against her, so disproportionate, as to scare her out of her wits? The seeds of hatred that are being sown, watered and carefully nurtured will reap only more hatred. Not a single soul will ever benefit out of this, be it the ones sowing these seeds, the ones quietly watching them grow, or the ones trying to nip them in the bud.

Today there is Gurmehar Kaur, tomorrow there will be someone else who will become an easy target for the entire nation to show their debating skills, the matchless arguments that they can garner. The media will have a field day and will use all tools at their disposal to finish at the top of the TRP race. In a course of a few days or months, things will fizzle out and one Gurmehar Kaur will be replaced by some other, for the entire cycle to be repeated again. In all this entertainment drama, there will be no thought spared for the individual for whom this entire experience will be a life-changing one, who, probably, will struggle to emerge from the impact of it, who, probably, will be a changed individual thenceforth. Not a thought will be spared to ruminate on the depths to which humankind is day-by-day stooping. Nobody will stop and think, take stock of the situation, try to make amends, because all will be pre-occupied with thinking of the next witty comment they can make, of the ways in which they can make their fellows trip and fall and race ahead themselves, of the numerous ways in which they can prove their superiority over others. The only thing that will be forgotten in this hullaballoo is that a blind and mad race can only lead to more madness and blindness and nothing more than that.

कुछ बात उन "गैरों" की

वो कहते हैं जिस सरज़मीं की नींव ही नफ़रतों पर टिकी है उसके वजूद को नापाक कहना ही सच्चा है

हम तो ये ही सोचते रह गए कि उन नफ़रतों के लिए अपनी भी ज़िम्मेदारी से उन्हों ने इतनी आसानी से मुंह फ़ेरा कैसे है

वो कहते हैं कि हमसे मुसलसल जंग-ए-ऐलान करना ही उस क़ौम का मक़सद है

हम तो ये ही सोचते रह गए कि करोड़ों इंसान जाने एक ही मक़सद से ज़िंदा कैसे हैं

वो कहते हैं कि मुसलमान लफ़्ज़ से ही हमें एक गैरियत का एहसास होना लाज़मी है

हम तो ये ही सोचते रह गए कि हर मुसलमान जो हमें मिला इतनी अपनाइयत से मिला क्यूँ है

वो कहते हैं कि अकबर हो या औरंगज़ेब या कि तेमूर ही हो सब एक थे कुचला उन्होने हमें सदियों तक है

हम तो ये ही सोचते रह गए कि जो अपने बताए जाते हैं उनसे इतना दर्द और खौफ़ का एहसास मिला क्यूँ है

वो कहते हैं कि इतनी तेज़ी से बढ़ रहे हैं वो कि दूर नहीं वो दिन जब इस सरज़मीं फिर उनका ही राज होगा

हम तो ये ही सोचते रह गए कि उनकी तो सुकून भरी ज़िंदगी की छोटी सी ख्वाइश भी एक दुआ भर है

वो कहते हैं कि अमन की चाहत तो हमें भी है पर चैन वो कभी लेने ही नहीं देते

हम तो ये ही सोचते रह गए कि चैन-ओ-अमन की दरकार करने वालों के दिलों में नफ़रतों का घरौंदा जाने बसा क्यूँ है..... नफ़रतों का घरौंदा जाने बसा क्यूँ है.....