In 1992, when the Babri structure was demolished, a Marathi journalist who witnessed the act of the karsevaks assembled in Ayodhya had made a profound observation about the huge crowd. He described, “I am witnessing a sea of humanity. No matter what language they speak, what caste they belong to, what region they represent—the only unifying identity they all unmistakably share is that of being Hindus.”
True, the electrifying impact of the Ayodhya movement has been the historic unification of Hindus, motivating them to rise above caste and community considerations. Understandably, that was the core objective behind the mobilisation. After the Meenakshipuram conversions of 1981, the Ayodhya movement passed through many phases including Ram sheela pujan and the rath yatra led by L K Advani. Remember, all this happened after the Shah Bano episode, when secularism was made to stand on its legs. But unlike in the past, Rajiv Gandhi’s decision on the Shah Bano case in abject surrender before Muslim obscurantists, met with severe criticism even from those who had never supported the BJP or the RSS. The Shah Bano decision proved to be an example of such blatant hypocrisy that Arif Mohammad Khan preferred to resign than to remain in the cabinet.
It was on this setting that the political narrative of the late 1990s saw the emergence of many new terms featuring prominently in the media as well as academia. Minority-ism, minority appeasement and vote bank politics were a few from the oft-repeated new lexicon. They became popular as people saw a point in the BJP-RSS’s attack on pseudo-secularism—a euphemism for the hypocrisy of almost the entire non-BJP establishment. What made L K Advani’s statement—“Justice to all, appeasement of none”—catch the imagination of voters was the Congress’s unabashed disregard for some key guiding principles of the Constitution. The Congress party’s refusal to abrogate Article 370 or introduce a Common Civil Code providing for a ban on triple talaq were clearly aimed at protecting the Muslim vote bank, a fact that convinced Hindus of the party’s continued politics of minority appeasement.
No wonder the BJP was able to mobilise all who were, firstly, disenchanted with the Congress’s politics and, secondly, had started realising that no matter what social group they belonged to the ethos they all shared was essentially Hindu.
During the last 30 years, the landscape and grammar of politics in India has changed drastically. Remember acronyms such as AJGAR for Ahirs, Jats, Gujars, Adivasis and Rajputs? Or MY alliance, meaning Muslims and Yadavs? Today, the use of such acronyms has become rare, perhaps because they are fast losing relevance. Gone are the days of open casteist appeals such as “Tilak, taraju aur talwar, inko maro jute chaar (Hit the tilak, balance and sword with shoes)”, a broad-daylight call to attack Brahmins, Banias and Kshatriyas. True, the Jats in Haryana, Marathas in Maharashtra or Adivasis in Chhattisgarh continue to be politically assertive. But now, the assertion of their caste identity is not happening at the cost of their Hindu identity.
The women’s quota bill, once obstructed by the Samajwadi Party and its allies for the want of a quota within the quota, today faced no national opposition. After the recent assembly elections’ verdict, the talk of “Jitni abadi, utna haq (Rights according to population)” seems to have died down. Once, staunch advocates of faith-based quota—the Congress and the Left parties—are today apparently silent on the issue. Unsurprisingly, PM Modi’s candid observation that he recognises only four castes—the poor, youth, women and farmers—is finding resonance, especially among the young.
A few months earlier, the declaration of the results of the caste census in Bihar was seen as a game-changer; almost no political party chose to oppose the idea. However, the fact remains that a caste census eventually holds mirror to the numerically small and big caste groups, most of whom refuse to believe that they are numerically not so very strong. While a caste census is an idea supported by all, a consensus on the outcome of the census is hard to achieve. Obviously then, limitations to this so-called ‘game-changer idea’ have come to the fore.
All this is pushing vote bank politics to the backburner. Notwithstanding the Congress leadership declining invitation to attend the Ayodhya consecration ceremony, the first-family siblings seem to have realised that visiting temples doesn’t make them any less secular. Not just that, in the 2018 Madhya Pradesh assembly elections, the Congress had announced the development of a Ram Path Van Gaman, the road taken by Ram while in vanvas, as mentioned in the Ramayan. Unlike in the past when the then Prime Minister Narasimha Rao had talked of rebuilding the Babri mosque, the Congress seems to have realised that it is wise to remain silent.
Hindutva opponents must understand that assertion of Hindu-ness is an integral part of project decolonisation. And remember, the idea of decolonisation is enormous. True, it is hard to achieve, but it is truer that it is impossible to oppose. Just two-three decades earlier, one would not have imagined that the New Delhi Municipal Corporation could seamlessly alter the name of Aurangzeb Road and make it APJ Abdul Kalam Road without any brouhaha. The same proved to be true when Aurangabad and Osmanabad in Maharashtra recently became Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar and Dharashiv. The Congress-secularists combine must realise that, all said and done, Indians cannot identify themselves with the aggressors and oppressors of the medieval era.
All this suggests a new realisation of the emergence of an assertive and assimilating Hindu. A society that certainly refrains from needless aggression, but now also refuses to tolerate the unprovoked aggression of others. A new Hindu that refuses to be taken for granted. And remember, this new Hindu will celebrate the consecration joyfully, but certainly would not provoke adherents of other belief systems. The new Hindu mood is, “We will not provoke anyone; if someone wantonly provokes us, we will not spare them.”
(Views are personal)
(vinays57@gmail.com)
Vinay Sahasrabuddhe, President, ICCR and senior BJP leader