The politics of the ‘right’ and the ‘right’ to politics

"India has not had such demographic changes since its independence. In fact it has been on the receiving end of illegal Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh in Assam, who have altered substantially the demography of Assam. It is conveniently overlooked that in a population of nearly 80% of majority Hindus, the BJP and its allies have not exactly found a willing vote bank. Is the ‘Hindutva’ brigade the only communal and political eyesore in Indian polity? How are the labels of ‘right’ and ‘left’ wing deployed? Who deploys them and why?"

______________


by Swati Parashar

(December 11, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) In the wake of the Mumbai attacks and electoral results declared in five states in India, much is being made of the defeat of ‘communal and right wing’ forces in India by both Indian and foreign media. Being educated in the so called ‘liberal’ environment of Delhi University and JNU (latter particularly where the student ‘left wing’ parties practice uncritical political tyranny in the name of Marx, Lenin and Mao), I have always been troubled by the political language that we employ to distinguish the ‘right wing’ from the ‘left wing’. In our country where intolerance from various social, political and religious quarters has manifested itself through all kinds of violence, the politics of labelling can be very pernicious and misleading.

I have always heard that the Bhartiya Janata Party (not exactly my favourite!) is a ‘communal’ party, a ‘fascist’ force, a ‘right wing’ ‘Hindutva’ outfit that propagates intolerance and hatred towards the ‘other’ which includes primarily Muslims and now even Christians. The Left and the Congress hold on to their dear ‘secular’ credentials and lash out in no uncertain terms at the ‘right wing’ ‘Hindutva’ brigade of the Sangh Parivar affiliated groups. Not many of us would contest the political ‘identity’ thus bestowed on and perhaps also claimed by the BJP and its affiliates. It should not, however, prevent us from raising questions or from interrogating more deeply, the political ‘identity’ claimed by the ‘secularists’ and how the politics of ‘naming’ works in India.

In a multilayered identity that I espouse, where I sometimes find a little bit of Hindu in me, it is offensive when ‘Hindutva’ becomes a ‘dirty’ word, which comes to signify only the mis-constructed (not mis-interpreted!) reading of a benign, tolerant and pluralistic religion. ‘Hindutva’ as a way of life has been maligned by the Sangh Parivar’s social and cultural vigilantism, as much as by the politics of labelling and demonising by the so called ‘secularists’ whose politics otherwise depends upon the defence of religious freedom and identity. Terrorism has no religion, we are often reminded. But ‘communalism’ in India, by short sightedness, is persistently ascribed to the ‘Hindutva’ ideology and by that logic to the Hindu community. All Muslims are not terrorists, but are all Hindus communalists? Communalism is presented as a religious and political monster nurtured by L K Advani and his men and women who demolished the Babri Masjid and who unleashed communal violence and politics in the country as a way to garner votes (The ‘kamandal’ emerged as a response to the ‘mandal’). I see no condemnation of fundamentalism or communal politics of minority groups by the self declared liberals and leftists, whereas, every other form of violence like jihadi terrorism, (including the most recent attacks in Mumbai) becomes justified as a response to the ‘Hindutva’ ideology. The politics of nomenclature makes it convenient to slap the majority community with the communal label. It is safe, appealing and politically correct, and conveniently de-historicises communalism in the Indian sub-continent, as I argue further.

I often receive emails from Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and even Sri Lankans who remind me of the ‘right wing’ fundamentalist threat of the BJP in India. I would not dispute the claim that the Sangh Parivar outfits have certainly undermined the idea of ‘secularism’ and practise an ideology that is conservative and reactionary. But when the neighbours single out the majority communalism in India, either they have short memory or that they are yet to reconcile with their own history! Communalism is not a BJP creation in India neither a phenomenon without history prior to the Babri Masjid demolition. Not so long ago, Jinnah thought that Muslims could not live together with the Hindus and the ‘two nation theory’ was born. Then followed the genocide of Bengalis in the East and a third nation was born out of communalism unleashed in a most violent form by the Pakistani state. Muslim League was founded in 1906 while the Hindu Mahasabha was founded in 1915 as a ‘reaction’ to the politics of the League. Talking of exclusion and community rights, what came first: ‘Banaras Hindu University’ or ‘Aligarh Muslim University’?

The raison de tre of the creation of Pakistan as well as Bangladesh is a ‘communal’ identity based on exclusion of the ‘other’. Gujarat riots are not the first communal pogrom we have seen in the sub-continent. Jinnah’s own hands are drenched in the blood of innocents by his culpability in the massive communal riots on the ‘Direct Action Day’. This was 16th August 1946, a year before the eventual partition of India which was to witness one of the worst communal pogroms in history. I am not by any means suggesting that the riots in Gujarat were justified, or that two wrongs make a right. My concern is that history is not better served when conveniently forgotten. Why are there no lessons from the past especially for those perched on moral high grounds, and those who play the politics of ‘victimhood’ and ‘persecution’? Wasn’t Jinnah’s politics based on exclusion, violence and communalism? Jinnah had said, “As for the Muslims, it was the duty imposed on him by Islam not to merge his identity and individuality in any alien society”. Tolerance and inclusion is not exactly reflected here! Noted Islamic scholar, A. G. Noorani has often argued that Jinnah was a nationalist who prided himself as being part of a Muslim community and always worked for their welfare. In his words, “Mohammed Ali Jinnah was an Indian nationalist who did not believe that nationalism meant turning one's back on the rights of one's community.” Can we not extend the same argument to other non Muslim nationalist projects which claim to be working for the ‘rights’ (however problematic they maybe) of their own community?

It seems rather hypocritical that Pakistani and Bangladeshi civil society should raise issues of Hindu communalism in India, not only because of their violent history but also because of their contemporary politics. It is worth noting that minorities have been wiped out of the political and social map of these neighbouring states. Of course the Babri Mosque demolition is a shameful episode in Indian history, but does anyone once talk about the other places of worship that were destroyed in our neighbourhood? Not to mention Sri Lanka where the state uses military force to crush its minorities. Has anyone bothered to check the ‘collateral damage’ unleashed on the Hindus and other minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh since their creation? The systematic decline of Hindu population in both these Islamic Republics might unsettle those who talk about minority rights in India. At the time of partition the population of Hindus was between 15-20% in what is today’s Pakistan and the latest figures of 1998 census put that to less than 2%. Marginalisation and persecution of the Hindus especially under the blasphemy laws have led to large scale conversions in Pakistan. Bangladesh has also registered a steady decline in its Hindu population who have been subjected to worst kinds of human rights abuses as documented by international organisations like the United Nations. The number of temples destroyed in Pakistan and Bangladesh never find mention in the discourse of the leftist liberals. An unprecedented temple demolition drive has been launched by the Islamic Government in Malaysia, and there is little intellectual discourse or civil society unrest over it. The silence persists like it did when the Bamiyan Buddhas were destroyed in Afghanistan!

India has not had such demographic changes since its independence. In fact it has been on the receiving end of illegal Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh in Assam, who have altered substantially the demography of Assam. It is conveniently overlooked that in a population of nearly 80% of majority Hindus, the BJP and its allies have not exactly found a willing vote bank. Is the ‘Hindutva’ brigade the only communal and political eyesore in Indian polity? How are the labels of ‘right’ and ‘left’ wing deployed? Who deploys them and why? And in principle why should a group of Hindus be denied the right to practice and preach ‘communal’ politics in a democratic space where politics of exclusion and intolerance from several collectivities is tolerated and even condoned? Lalu Yadav, in the last assembly elections in Bihar, used to go around the rallies with a Osama Bin Laden look alike apparently to impress his ‘alpsankhyak’ voters. Did we hear anyone calling Lalu ‘communal’ or ‘sectarian’ or ‘fascist’? Mulayam Singh Yadav’s own minister Haji Yakub had publicly announced the kilos of gold for anyone beheading the Swedish cartoonists for their blasphemous representations of the Prophet. Mulayam Singh Yadav, whose politics depends on the votes from his Muslim constituency, is still not ‘communal’ or ‘right wing’ or the leader of ‘radicals’, why? There is no debate on why the Mutahida Majlis Muslamin, of Hyderabad, which showed a great degree of intolerance and also indulged in violence towards Bangladeshi writer, Tasleema Nasreen, and otherwise has had a history of communal politics, is not called a ‘right wing’ or a ‘communal’ force. The party continues to be represented in the Parliament and is a supporter of the Congress. Then there is the All India Muslim league whose faction MLKSC (Muslim League Kerala State Committee) is a constituent of the UPA with even a minister in the cabinet. The Congress doesn’t have a problem with aligning itself with these parties which represent the ‘interests’ of specific religious communities while the Akali Dal becomes ‘communal’ by its association with the BJP led NDA.

If being ‘right wing’ and ‘communal’ means an exclusivist ideology that preaches violence, I am afraid the Congress will not score any better. The anti Sikh politics and anti Sikh violence was a Congress speciality. “When a might falls, it is only natural that the earth around it does shake a little”, said former Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, condoning anti Sikh riots subsequent to Indira Gandhi’s assassination. Perhaps the Congress is more ‘familial’ than ‘communal’? The Shah Bano case is still alive in the minds of Indians, as an example of how ‘community’ rights can suppress individual rights especially of women, even in a ‘secular democracy’. It was an example of communal politics at its worst. On similar lines, the ‘Mandal’ politics of V. P Singh was at the cost of the exclusion of certain sections of society and unleashed violence in this country. The Leftists are the worst offenders in my view because their intolerant ideology (if any) and politics is not even home-grown. The followers of Marx, Mao and Lenin never introspect as they deny their own political origins when they preach tolerance and inclusion. Most of us are aware of the minority rights in China and in other communist regimes the world has witnessed. Nandigram is the latest example of their ‘tolerance’, not withstanding violence unleashed by the Naxals, backed by the likes of CPI (ML). Mayawati had once said, “Tilak taraju aur talwar, inko maro jute chaar”. She cannot be ‘right wing’ and intolerant because she is a ‘revolutionary’ dalit leader.

Politicians alone have not participated in this politics of labelling, intellectuals also make serious contributions. For Ramchandra Guha, the noted historian, Puroshattam Das Tandon becomes a ‘right wing’ (in his latest book, India after Gandhi) because he advocated Hindi as an official language. Guha conveniently overlooks the linguistic chauvinism in Tamil Nadu. For that matter, Sripad Amrit Dange, who started the separate Maharashtra movement for the Marathi speaking population, is not considered ‘right wing’ by Guha. There is a debate required here. What constitutes ‘communal’ politics of exclusion and intolerance? What do we mean by ‘right wing’? Mere rhetoric does not suffice as probably when people delve deeper it would bring out a lot more ugliness than we could possibly face. I am not an admirer of the BJP’s politics neither adhere to its ideology or world view , (and lament the lack of a credible opposition in this country) but if they are ‘communal’ and therefore dangerous, why do we have different yardsticks for the other kinds of politics practised in this country? Why is it okay for certain groups and identities to have ‘community oriented’ and ‘exclusivist’ ideologies almost as a birth right and without any negotiation, whereas some other groups are denied that politics in a malicious form of political untouchability? Why should the politics of exclusion and violence (however much we disagree with and abhor) be the prerogative of only a privileged few?

What constitutes ‘right’ in the first place and even if this ‘right’ is not ‘right’, should it be denied the ‘right’ to its politics?

The two pillars of 'political correctness' are:
a) Willful ignorance
b) A steadfast refusal to face the truth
(George MacDonald )

(Swati Parashar is a PhD candidate at the Department of Politics and International Relations, Lancaster University, UK. She can be contacted at swatiparashar@hotmail.com ) - Sri Lanka Guardian