From the “Tryst With Destiny” to the precarious puddle of malevolence, intolerance and vengeance, India has rather come a long way – though, in the wrong direction.
The great Indian dream where religion would not be the sole or primary deterrent for nationhood identity has been emasculated by flimsy notions exhorted by populist leaders with ultra-nationalistic undertones – the kind that is exclusionary in its essence, bedevilling the very foundation India was built on.
Perhaps, the most fitting example would be the upsurge in communal riots across India, mainly Hindu-Muslim. And one might come to question, why is it that after 70 years of living together in harmony or so, the world’s largest ‘secular’ democracy could not sustain its social make-up? Why is it that epigones of Savarkar and Golwalkar are able to do what even their predecessors could not? And how could the Indian people stand and watch their power corridors being swept by people with no regard to the letter or spirit of the Indian constitution?
Taking cue from academic literature, or lack thereof, most would try to ventilate their irritation by blaming what they despise the most: capitalism, democracy etcetera. But whatever might be the reason, the fact of the matter is that the incapacity of the state’s corrective mechanism for every wrong policy is criminal and leaves room for discourse that nobody’s quite ready for.
This certainly is not the first time. Communal riots have been India’s thing for a long time – the 1984 anti-Sikh riots incited by Indra Gandhi’s assassination by her two Sikh guards that resulted in the killing of approximately 17,000 Sikhs across India. This was triggered by Gandhi’s initiative, Operation Blue-Star.
Then, there are the pogroms run against Muslims as a matter of state policy whereby the state stood down, belatedly acted, and never acknowledged the wrong that was committed. A stark example would be of what happened in Gujarat under Narendra Modi’s Chief Ministership.
And this would not come as a surprise to many, the man who Indians like to anoint as the father of their nation was assassinated within five months of India’s inception, for being “too soft” towards Muslims by a Hindu fanatic.
The BJP, which likes to style itself as a Hindu-party premised on ideals from Hindutva, breeding leaders like Yogi Adityanath, should have found it difficult to tout their bigoted narrative to a population of 1.38 billion. In fact, it expedited their voter base. Because all they had to do was preach a distorted version of history, starting from Muhammad bin Qasim and before, up until the last Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar, vending starry-eyed romanticism with retribution (not much for the tryst with destiny anymore), claiming that today’s Muslims would pay for what they did when they ruled the Indian subcontinent.
While it is true that Muslim emperors ruled for centuries, and for the most part minorities remained disaffected, owing partly to a minority specific tax, jizya. But to conflate the Mughals and their doings with the Muslims in India today is facile and overly simplistic.
The longest remaining example of this tension is Kashmir. A valley where security personnel enjoy impunity in whatever heinous activities they engage in, civil liberties have been suspended for more than a year – a de facto martial law, in essence. It has continued to be the focus for many international human rights organisations and watches, who in their own diplomatic contacts and on the world-stage have raised serious concerns. But now, India aims to host the G-20 summit in the occupied valley of Jammu and Kashmir – an old-school trick to get the world to acknowledge India’s sovereignty over the land.
However, it would only work, if the world leaders heed to India’s call for a summit in the said location. Pakistan did what it does best (or possible, could only do): reject the call, claiming that India could not hold the summit since it continues to be a disputed territory.
India continues to tread sensitive lines, juggling frenetic fireballs in hopes of gilding and relieving its conscience of the supposed horrors of the past while providing retributive impunity to mobs. But forgetting that it isn’t a small minority that could be conveniently oppressed and a number far outstripping the entire population of Pakistan. It doesn't matter who is driving the lorry off the hill just like rearranging the chairs of the Titanic would not have stopped the ship from sinking. What matters is that colouring the Indian identity into only one shade, and that too in an exclusively Hindu rendition, would be pernicious for the future Indian fabric; and, it has to stop.
The great Indian dream where religion would not be the sole or primary deterrent for nationhood identity has been emasculated by flimsy notions exhorted by populist leaders with ultra-nationalistic undertones – the kind that is exclusionary in its essence, bedevilling the very foundation India was built on.
Perhaps, the most fitting example would be the upsurge in communal riots across India, mainly Hindu-Muslim. And one might come to question, why is it that after 70 years of living together in harmony or so, the world’s largest ‘secular’ democracy could not sustain its social make-up? Why is it that epigones of Savarkar and Golwalkar are able to do what even their predecessors could not? And how could the Indian people stand and watch their power corridors being swept by people with no regard to the letter or spirit of the Indian constitution?
Taking cue from academic literature, or lack thereof, most would try to ventilate their irritation by blaming what they despise the most: capitalism, democracy etcetera. But whatever might be the reason, the fact of the matter is that the incapacity of the state’s corrective mechanism for every wrong policy is criminal and leaves room for discourse that nobody’s quite ready for.
The BJP should have found it difficult to tout their bigoted narrative to a population of 1.38 billion. In fact, it expedited their voter base. All they had to do was preach a distorted version of history, starting from Muhammad bin Qasim and before, up until the last Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar.
This certainly is not the first time. Communal riots have been India’s thing for a long time – the 1984 anti-Sikh riots incited by Indra Gandhi’s assassination by her two Sikh guards that resulted in the killing of approximately 17,000 Sikhs across India. This was triggered by Gandhi’s initiative, Operation Blue-Star.
Then, there are the pogroms run against Muslims as a matter of state policy whereby the state stood down, belatedly acted, and never acknowledged the wrong that was committed. A stark example would be of what happened in Gujarat under Narendra Modi’s Chief Ministership.
And this would not come as a surprise to many, the man who Indians like to anoint as the father of their nation was assassinated within five months of India’s inception, for being “too soft” towards Muslims by a Hindu fanatic.
The BJP, which likes to style itself as a Hindu-party premised on ideals from Hindutva, breeding leaders like Yogi Adityanath, should have found it difficult to tout their bigoted narrative to a population of 1.38 billion. In fact, it expedited their voter base. Because all they had to do was preach a distorted version of history, starting from Muhammad bin Qasim and before, up until the last Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar, vending starry-eyed romanticism with retribution (not much for the tryst with destiny anymore), claiming that today’s Muslims would pay for what they did when they ruled the Indian subcontinent.
While it is true that Muslim emperors ruled for centuries, and for the most part minorities remained disaffected, owing partly to a minority specific tax, jizya. But to conflate the Mughals and their doings with the Muslims in India today is facile and overly simplistic.
India aims to host the G-20 summit in the occupied valley of Jammu and Kashmir – an old-school trick to get the world to acknowledge India’s sovereignty over the land. However, it would only work, if the world leaders heed to India’s call for a summit in the said location. Pakistan did what it does best: reject the call, claiming that India could not hold the summit since it continues to be a disputed territory.
The longest remaining example of this tension is Kashmir. A valley where security personnel enjoy impunity in whatever heinous activities they engage in, civil liberties have been suspended for more than a year – a de facto martial law, in essence. It has continued to be the focus for many international human rights organisations and watches, who in their own diplomatic contacts and on the world-stage have raised serious concerns. But now, India aims to host the G-20 summit in the occupied valley of Jammu and Kashmir – an old-school trick to get the world to acknowledge India’s sovereignty over the land.
However, it would only work, if the world leaders heed to India’s call for a summit in the said location. Pakistan did what it does best (or possible, could only do): reject the call, claiming that India could not hold the summit since it continues to be a disputed territory.
India continues to tread sensitive lines, juggling frenetic fireballs in hopes of gilding and relieving its conscience of the supposed horrors of the past while providing retributive impunity to mobs. But forgetting that it isn’t a small minority that could be conveniently oppressed and a number far outstripping the entire population of Pakistan. It doesn't matter who is driving the lorry off the hill just like rearranging the chairs of the Titanic would not have stopped the ship from sinking. What matters is that colouring the Indian identity into only one shade, and that too in an exclusively Hindu rendition, would be pernicious for the future Indian fabric; and, it has to stop.