feeds from sacw.net
print versionKashmir Times, 3 September 2014
Editorial
Islamic Caliphate and Hindu Rashtra
Pernicious concepts with dangerous fallouts have no place in plural societies
The demand for an Islamic Caliphate in Syria-Iraq finds a matching resonance in India with cry for ‘Hindu Rashtra’ gaining ground – having moved from the traditional RSS circles to the neo BJP converts like Najma Heptullah. The latter has backtracked from her previous statement on Hindu identity and said that she was misquoted, only after much criticism. However, the newspaper that published her interview stands by the report and has evidence of recorded conversation to support its claims. Even her endeavour to evade the blame by stating that she meant ‘Hindi identity’ and not ‘Hindu identity’ does not have much of a sobering influence. Neither the term Hindu, nor Hindi are inclusive in any manner. The Indian nation comprises of people of different ethnic and religious identities and even if the term Hindu and Hindi, derived from the word Hind, are to be seen in their socio-geographic and historic context, these terms are not all encompassing and do not incorporate several states and regions that came into being after the construction of Hind as a cultural identity in times when the concept of a nation state was unknown. This clichéd characterization of Hindu identity does not take into account recent constructs in the sociological, geographical and political realms.
Besides, the saffron politics during the British period added a new connotation to the identity derived from the word ‘Hind’, making it anti-plural and antagonistic to many cultures and religions. Since it is often used in its purest Hindutva sense, it is inappropriate to impose this identity that is exclusivist in nature even if the connotation was meant to be simplistically innocent, which it usually isn’t. That is why, perhaps, the constitution describes the country as India or Bharat, never as Hindustan, which was a conscious attempt by the architects of the constitution to avoid imposing identities that can have complex connotations and a cause of contention. The obvious import of initiating a debate on notions of the ‘Hindu identity’ and ‘Hindu rashtra’ is that it is done with the design of imposing a majoritarian culture, language and religion on the rest. The matching discourse of anti-Muslim and anti-minorities rhetoric, raking up controversial issues and the construction of inflammable notions like ‘love-jehad’ or defining schemes for minorities as ways to pamper them betrays the basic principle behind this entire saffronised ‘identity’ politics being played up.
Viewed in totality, there is little that can distinguish this Hindu Rashtra paradigm from the Islamic Caliphate one. They are both inspired by a misplaced sense of superiority, bitter xenophobic animosity and a justification of means that are not only aggressive but also violent. They are both founded on lies and by whipping a sense of redefined and flawed history. Interestingly, such unjustifiable demands, especially invoked in plural societies, not only run parallel to each other but also complement each other and find a rationale for expansion based on competitive ‘othering’. Unlike the monstrous tones that the Hindu identity debate is evoking, the Islamic Caliphate supporters within India is still are quite negligible but not entirely unknown. While elsewhere the ISIS factor is trying to gain legitimacy by wrongly invoking the Prophet, in India, the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind has begun pedaling the theory that Maulana Abul Kalam Azad stood for an Islamic Caliphate. This is a dishonest and devious attempt not only to defend a pernicious ideology but also to paint a man, known for his Indian nationalistic credentials, his role in Indian freedom struggle, his support for social democracy and his staunch opposition to even Islamic Khilafat. Strange coincidence that the man to whom the Caliphate dream is being wrongly linked happens to be the ancestor of the woman propping up the Hindu identity case. Maulana Azad would be the saddest man in his grave.
