feeds from sacw.net
print versionby J Sri Raman
HUM HINDUSTANI
Swamy prefers to shine in solitary splendour as the president of a virtually one-man Janata Party, but has been quick to make common cause with the parivar on issues of crucial importance to it such as Narendra Modi’s nationalist virtues and the reprehensible crimes of religious minorities
Humanity as a whole may not have heard of Andreas Behring Breivik a month ago but was forced to take note of his ’manifesto’ after the Norway massacre of July 23. Subramanian Swamy presents a parallel. The outside world may not have heard much of the Indian politician, but his own manifesto, released through a newspaper article, deserves wider notice.
Breivik’s massacre and manifesto startled many in western Europe; they had not suspected the existence, in their midst, of such political-ideological madness. Swamy’s article of July 16 did not have a similar impact in India. He has long been known as part of the country’s far-right even if not a member of any of its organisations, including the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
Seventy-two-year-old Swamy prefers to shine in solitary splendour as the president of a virtually one-man Janata Party, but has been quick to make common cause with the parivar (the far-right ’family’) on issues of crucial importance to it such as Narendra Modi’s nationalist virtues and the reprehensible crimes of religious minorities. Such has been his staple fare, though the maverick politician indulges more than occasionally also in muckraking with vulnerable political figures as his victims.
There are two main reasons why Swamy’s latest homily to the nation, especially its Hindu majority, on ’How to wipe out Islamic terror’ merits note. In the first place, the article represents the first, full Indian far-right reaction — even if Swamy does not say so — to Breivik’s inanities concerning India.
It was noted in this column (Daily Times, July 29, 2011) that the Norwegian’s manifesto elicited no reaction at all from the parivar. Since then we have heard on the subject from these quarters. Ram Madhav of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has gone so far as to suggest that he did not share the mass murderer’s sentiments or strategy. Praveen Togadia of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) has waxed indignant over Breivik’s bracketing of any western religion with the world’s most sacred faith that, to Togadia, is Hindutva. The BJP has refrained from reacting thus far.
Swamy, for his part, has taken Breivik head on, especially on the criticism of the Indian far right in the manifesto. The Norwegian termed attacks on Muslims and other minorities in India "counterproductive", asking the parivar to target the "traitors" of the majority community instead. Swamy, on the other hand, sets forth an agenda of minority bashing that can make the Togadias of the country look like models of communal tolerance.
Secondly, Swamy’s is a documentation of the parivar’s real priority for democracy and constitutionalism, for which the BJP in particular has always claimed to be an uncompromising fighter. The party claims to be an enemy of everything that the emergency of the mid-seventies represented, raising the bogey of its return on every conceivable occasion. Swamy himself quotes chapter and verse from the constitution, and knows enough law to defend himself in the string of defamation cases that he delights in.
Even the article begins with a definition of terrorism as "the illegal use of force to overawe the civilian population to make it do or not do an act against its will and well-being". There is no semblance of legality to the steps or ’strategies’ he advocates against the Islamic terror that he sees as the main threat to India.
He does blame the Hindus, or the non-communal majority within the majority, "who have taken their individuality permitted in Sanatan Dharma (the eternal faith) to the extreme" — or for not being communal enough. Instead of treating them as ’traitors’, however, Swamy focuses his fire on the minorities.
He says, "Terrorist masterminds have political goals and a method in their madness. An effective strategy to deter terrorism is to defeat those political goals and to rubbish them by counter-terrorist action." Then follows a ’strategy’ to "negate the political goals of Islamic terrorism in India".
For example, if the ’goal’ is to "blast temples and kill Hindu devotees", the strategy will be to "remove the masjid in Kashi Vishwanath temple and the 300 masjids at other temple sites". If the goal is to "turn India into Darul Islam", the strategy will be "to make learning of Sanskrit mandatory", among other things. If the goal is to "change India’s demography", the strategy will be to "enact a national law prohibiting conversion from Hinduism to any other religion", while "re-conversion will not be banned", and to "annex land from Bangladesh in proportion to the illegal migrants from that country" (possibly, according to Swamy, the territory from Sylhet to Khulna).
More revealing of the far-right mindset is the strategy that nearly sounds like Swamy’s "final solution". He says, "If any Muslim acknowledges his or her Hindu legacy, then we Hindus can accept him or her as a part of the Brihad Hindu Samaj (greater Hindu society), which is Hindustan. India, that is Bharat that is Hindustan, is a nation of Hindus and others whose ancestors were Hindus."
Ominously, he adds, "Others, who refuse to acknowledge this, or those foreigners who become Indian citizens by registration, can remain in India but should not have voting rights (which means they cannot be elected representatives)." The proposed disfranchisement of the minorities is of a piece with the parivar’s idea of democracy and constitutionalism.
The reaction to this exhortation from Swamy (who is reportedly negotiating a place in the BJP leadership) from the parivar, including his political front, is eloquent silence again so far.
The writer is a journalist based in Chennai, India. A peace activist, he is also the author of a sheaf of poems titled At Gunpoint
