The Untruth of an Indian Majority

Ref jang #105

[HP sirjee is right..and so is mani

while the hindu identity exists, hindutva politics is successfull only as a reactionary force. So, if there is a Godhra, modi will win elections....]

Er.... If there is a train of Hindu plgrims set upon fire, them there will be riots all over Gujarat.

It is surprising that the perpetrators of hate crimes against Hindus masquerade as victims.

The reactionary force is Gujarat riots against Godhra train fire. Not Modi winning elections because of Godhra.

Can you get that through your skull?

Dost I partially agree.

Hindu identity existed withinin diversity for a very long time. Barring South India of antiquity which was not considered part of the Indian empire, Hindism was able to absorb the influences of Buddism and Jainism, reason why so few Buddists and Jains are left in what was the origins of these religions. It was only after the census in the 19th century, that the term Hindu was used to lump various diversities in the religion column other than muslims, christians, buddists, parsees and jews.

I will repeat that just like Arthashastra was a reflection of the Indian Political Mind, the emergence of the Saffron Brigade from 2-3 seats to a viable strenght is a reflection of the Indian Military Mind. I for one have been a keen student and admirer of Kautilyas poitical treatise and rate him above Machiavelli`s `Art of War` and Clausewitz` `On War`.

As for the construct of a nation, it remains cognitive at best and diversity has to be stranded with pluralism, instrumentalism and empowerment of people. Thats why we had so many theories in political economy. Whereas communism and socialism failed, economic interests in vibrant capitalist societies has been a common interest and rallying point.

HP. Though I always read your comments as enlightening, I feel that the construct of a Pakistani Nation was strongest before the State came into being. Later, it has weakened. Please read my essay on, Pakistan and Civil Society`

DM
{Here, I am a believer in Manto`s thesis that India`s secular leadership, especially the Congress Party, has always aligned itself with the Deobandi Mullahs instead of reaching out to the progressive elements of Indian Muslims.}

i think manto rails against congreess in pre-partition politics which was different. post partition politics was influenced first by a sense of vivisection, mayhem of partition and associated guilt and later by vote bank electoral calculation (eg indira and rajiv gandhi and commies)

Re: #80 by rakeshmani on April 24, 2006 9:58am PT
>>>>Let me tell you that I appreciate the civilised manner in which you convey your opinions<<<<

Rakesh,
Cheers.

Any time when you use words like lunacy, hogwash etc some may want to return the same favor returned to you, especially on an anonymous board!!

>>>>Granted that they all share the same ``holy stories`` and ``holy pilgrimage spots`` Just because Hindus all consider Haridwar or Tirupati holy... does that bind them closer together over and above their ethnic differences?<<<<

Rooting for a sports team, nationalism , caste wars, linguistic or religious chauvinism etc are all one and the same biological/ sociological phenomenon- several layers of our tribal instincts. A reflection of our not so distant simian origins. Yes, it is possible to have several layers of these instincts. As Masanmuthu also points out Hinduism as a collective instict is around and plays a role in uniting people.

re#107 Dost-Mittar writes`` So, if the Hindus have any identity today, they should be grateful to foreigners, especially Muslims, for it.

The political Hindu identity did not develop until 19th century and that too perhaps as a reaction to Sir Syed Ahmad`s development of a Pan-Indian Muslim identity``


Sir, Hindus got the same western education, rediscovered their literary and spiritual treasures, interacted across ethnic and linguistic lines -at least simulataneous to the muslims- rediscovered and established their identity.

You write- It is ``quite evident`` to me that the concept of Hindu identity was in relation to Muslims....

Very illuminating Sir. Irrespective of whether you are a Hindu or Muslim what a pity Sir. Our civilization, our heritage are several thousand years older.

Regards,

Rakesh:

We humans wear multiple hats when it comes to identities. A Keralite is a Nair, a Namboodri or a Syrian Christian when in Kerala; he is a Malayali when he moves to Bangalore, Chennai or Hyderabad; a ``Madrasi`` when he moves to Delhi and just an Indian when he visits a foreign country.

As for a Hindu identity, it is true that it is in some sense a foreign-imposed identity; it is the foreigners who called us Hindi and gave the name Hindu to a hotch-potch of indigenous religious beliefs and rituals with only some common concepts such as caste, rebirth and the notion of karma. So, if the Hindus have any identity today, they should be grateful to foreigners, especially Muslims, for it.

The political Hindu identity did not develop until 19th century and that too perhaps as a reaction to Sir Syed Ahmad`s development of a Pan-Indian Muslim identity (it bears stating however that his concept of Muslim identity was not confrontational as he called Hindus and Muslims as the two eyes of Mother India). The Hindu identity was promoted by organizations like Arya Samaj and less aggressively by people like Bal Gangadhar Tilak. It is quite evident to me that the concept of Hindu identity was in relation to Muslims and, to some extent, Christians and was also implicit in Jinnah`s two-nation theory who defined Hindus as a nation by default.

I am of the opinion that the Hindutva movement would have died after Godse assasinated Gandhi and the RSS and Hindu Sabha were blamed for it. The seeds of the birth of political Hindutva were sown by Nehru and company with their concept of asymmetrical secularism. They did not stop at giving equal rights to every individual citizen of India regardless of their relgious beliefs, but went on to enact special laws to provide special group rights to religious minorities in terms of civil laws and the control of their religious and educational institutions, which were not granted to the Hindus. Why did they do so? Here, I am a believer in Manto`s thesis that India`s secular leadership, especially the Congress Party, has always aligned itself with the Deobandi Mullahs instead of reaching out to the progressive elements of Indian Muslims. This has played wonderfully in the hands of the saffron parties and always will. For example, there is now an emerging consensus that private schools should be required to provide a quota for dalits - a move I support. However, the ``secular`` parties want to exclude minority religious institutions from this law. This really makes a mockery of the intent of the law as some of the best private schools are run by Christian organizations; more importantly it will add another arrow in the ``pseudo-secular`` propaganda of the BJP.

It seems to me that it is relatively easy to defeat political hindutva. It is basically a reactionary movement and derives its strength largely from the perception of minority apeasement by the educated Hindus - remove this perception and you can take the wind out of the sails of Hindutva.

Re: # 105

good point.... people are putting too much importance on hindutva politics vis-a-vis emerging indian identity.... VHP/RSS are reactionaries who may be trying to ride the identity wave for their political gain - but the growth of the identity itself is independent of the reactionary forces and is much bigger a phenomenon than their politics.... VHP/RSS are here today, will be gone tomorrow - but the indian identity will move on and grow stronger and stronger....

And like you said - the reactionary forces will quickly loose their platform if muslims wisen up and stop playing into their hands..... that`s last hurdle that the emerging ``indian identity`` has to overcome - the tussle between hindu and muslim reactionaries who feed each other....

HP sirjee is right..and so is mani

while the hindu identity exists, hindutva politics is successfull only as a reactionary force. So, if there is a Godhra, modi will win elections. Beyond that the current political setup at the centre is a coalition of regional and cast-based parties, and these parties have strength (Shivsena, TDP, DMK/AIDMK, JD in karnataks, BSP, SP, JMM, Akalis and so on). In absence of an ``action``, its hard for hindutva forces to whip-up enough support. Almost all hindutva plank issues are reactionary to current politics..except ram janam bhumi, which is a spent force. It can be revived only as a reaction to some ``muslim`` activity.

Stuka #95, 97

“how is ethnic identity any better or worse than religious identity? The former lead to Bangladesh, the latter to Gujarat.”

It is a little more complicated than that. Those two events have to be looked at in the right perspective. In Pakistan, the effort was to create a nation since there was no Pakistan before 1947. They chose religion to be the binding factor. In reality that proved to be a very thin string. If they had agreed to accept the Bengali, Sindhi, Punjabi and other ethnicities and built the nation by recognizing their linguistic and political rights, Bengali had no reason to leave the federation.

Gujarat was the explosion of the communal politics that was going on for a long time. It was not against the State or the union but a clash between two sets of people.

As I said the debate is how do you define your nation. The experiment in Pakistan to give it a religious identity has met with a colossal failure.

In India, the sub nations or the ethnicities have already been defined by accepting the linguistic and historical boundaries between different ethnicities. While in Pakistan they were trying to call Bengal- East Pakistan, Bengal in India was still Bengal. The name East Pakistan was an attempt to take the ethnicity away and Bengalis reacted to it. Bengali at that count have no beef with India, but if you change the name of the State to something else people would react to it.

What constitute a Nation? Would the religious identity alone suffice for a bunch of people to declare themselves a nation? Muslims have been running around with this for a long time but how much success they have had with this? Except for agreement between a bunch of lunatics, there is nothing in common in an Indonesian Muslim and a Pakistani Muslim.

In Pakistan, the Muslim nationhood was attempted from the top down and it failed. After the 77, fundamentalism again was unleashed from the top. It was not a grassroots movement so it became a tool for oppression and ended up promoting terrorism.

TheHindutva-vaadi in India is trying to redefine the Indian nation by declaring religion as the binding force that supersedes the linguistic and ethnic roots. What I tried to show in my previous post was that defining nation based on religion failed in Pakistan and it would fail in India too.

Though, I must say that there is a difference in situation too. Hindu and India have many similarities therefore, Hindutva-vaadi can raise a grassroots movement but the minute that movement is pitted against the ethnicity based politics, it will lose.

Let me ask you something: what is the motivation for Hindutva-vaadi to redefine the Indian nation based on religion? India is not a new country it has held certain geographical boundaries for centuries and many linguistic and ethnic groups have been able to live together despite many odds. So what is the reason for pushing an agenda that can only be divisive?


“Bullshit. I oppose all reservations based on any identity other than economic. I am not a Hindutva supporter, and your pigeonholing me in to that category is more for your own intellectual satisfaction rather than an honest attempt to get to the truth. I am a minority here (in ethnic and religious terms) and oppose affirmative action other than that based on economic criteria. I guess that makes me a Hindutvawadi as well.”

That is subjective! I am a minority here too and I fully support the affirmative action and other laws to go with that.

I do accept your point though. A system has to be developed but you need to look at which majority supports the positive change and which one jumps up and down in opposition.

Re: # 101

Salim bhai,

Well said!

Re: # 90 rakesh
[...The emerging identity is not Indian, but Hindu - to the detriment of the minorities...]

Nope - the emerging identity is Indian Identity which derives its essence from hindu majority who are driving it..... it`s an inclusive identity which seeks to include ALL indians... most minority groups are taking part in this with gusto - except for a section among muslims.... true to their stupidity, they are holding back, but hopefully not for long....

ali1 #98, {``Historically, ``secular`` and ``pluralistic`` are not the words that get associated with Hinjus, ``cowards`` and ``shameless`` is more like it. Why do people make this collection of pagan rituals sound so grandiose? Even the Kalaharis are more evloved than you folks samosay, at least they do not imbibe animal excrement. ``}

Ali1,
It is Muslims like you that makes me ashamed of my religion and the result it has on otherwise fine primates who could swing from tree to tree without making an ass out of themselves. Modi needs to focus his database on your type of miaaNs.

Mr. Mani

I think your examples are fallacious. Yes a Gujarati Hindutwadi is a minority say in Kerala, as a Hindutwadi and as a male. So a New England Yankee is a minority in Bush country in the US. Does it say anything? I`ll go one further, a Irish-Catholic Bostonian is a minority in the Bible belt. Hell, they don`t even speak the same language. Y`all get that.-)

[[My point is, it is sheer lunacy to classify Hindus as a majority in a country as diverse as India – they are a majority solely on paper.]]

My dear fellow they are a majority. A Christian is a Christian whether he is Catholic, Pentecoastal. Baptist, Calvinist, C of E ..... So too with the Hindus. Don`t bring ridiculous ideas of language, state etc into the equation.

You seem to be really bothered about saffron politics, and then in your concluding paragraphs, claim that it`s not going to succeed.

[[Unlike the Semitic faiths, the sense of collective identity is naturally weak and attempts by the Hindutva movement to, essentially, unite Hindus by semitizing the faith in order to foster such identity is a spineless attempt at gaining political power – the ethnic identities are too weighty to be displaced by a shared perception of Hinduism.]]

Well then you shouldn`t worry about secularism then, should you? It`s going to have a field day with all those Hindus arguing with each other , right?

So what`s the purpose of your article?

[[Secular India is facing its toughest challenges ever. The notion that Hindus form a potentially powerful majority in the country is a myth. Nothing else. India is not a Hindu country in the same way it is not a Hindi-speaking nation. The sooner our politicians, people and the world community realize this, the better.]]

So where i s the tough challenge on secular India if there is no Hindu vote bank? Is the challenge coming from the Muslim vote bank, the Sikh vote bank, the Christian vote bank, the Marxist vote bank? Who should the politicians woo?

The saffron bank has always existed. They will have their place in the sun. They will change India a little, for better and worse. They will also fall by the wayside when they outlive their time.

I think the Indian youth are far more pragmatic than you think them to be. You won`t have to worry about secularism (Indian style) vanishing. As long as people can earn a living, they will be too busy trying to make money to worry about saffron, white and green. St. Valentine will merge with Kama Deva.

Re: # 97

Stuka,

I just read your article ``Confessions of a BJP supporter``

Wanted to let you know that I too, find Mulayam Yadav`s behaviour totally unacceptable. I really liked the way you wrote that article. Well done..

Rakesh Mani:
Hinduism is the reason why Hindia is one country.... what else is commone b/w a Tamilian Hinju and a Punjabi Hinju?

#92 by samosa
``There has never been any group of individuals as historically pluralistic and secular than Hindus``

samosay, where and how did you get your brain washed? Historically, ``secular`` and ``pluralistic`` are not the words that get associated with Hinjus, ``cowards`` and ``shameless`` is more like it. Why do people make this collection of pagan rituals sound so grandiose? Even the Kalaharis are more evloved than you folks samosay, at least they do not imbibe animal excrement.

``Is it the secular model which would eventually have to allow all minorities equal rights in jobs, education and social life or the Religious model that ensures that a certain group enjoys all the benefits. ``

What about a model that gives rights to certain castes and not others; or certain ethnicities and not others? Define ``equal rights`` for all minorities? Does ``equal rights`` mean giving a minority a leg up at the expense of the majority?

``Just pay attention to people who oppose the quota system and equal representation to OBC and the religious minorities…They invariably support the Hindutva ideology.
``


Bullshit. I oppose all reservations based on any identity other than economic. I am not a Hindutva supporter, and your pigeonholing me in to that category is more for your own intellectual satisfaction rather than an honest attempt to get to the truth. I am a minority here (in ethnic and religious terms) and oppose affirmative action other than that based on economic criteria. I guess that makes me a Hindutvawadi as well.