Hindutva & Identity Politics – A Labyrinth

The recent Hijab controversy has brought India into extremes. One side talks of secularism while swearing over religion and another side talks of identity preservance as a basic fundamental right.

The BJP and its New India is however, playing a game of definitions. Definition of “what is religion” while the liberal class is playing safe with wrongly comprehended idea of intersectionalism.
The good example of this is the classification of Indians as majority & minorty.

Substituting “Muslims” for “Minorities” contributes nil in the fascist battle.
It highlights the inherent division of majority & minority, by offering privileged sympathy to the cause.
Perhaps, creates the ground for identity politics, as “they” (the oppressed) should have been humble.

The idea is to add a concious “they” prefix to the oppressed.
The BJP is actually playing a game of definitions and not perceptions. It is about systematically & consciously othering people by religious identification.
The majority wants to establish prejudice as a matter of righteousness.

Minorities include parsi, Christians and other Abrahamic religions including Islam. However, religiously they can’t be placed under one umbrella. For they have various differences. This is primarily because though Abrahamic religion is primarily monotheist its justification and practice differs not only religions respectively, but also individually.

The BJP wants to hide the plural dimensions of Abrahamic religions by highlighting the singularity of Abrahamic religions. This further assisted by neoliberals who project minorities to be under attack by the majority, which is essentially the Hindus.

The majority that in any case has newly learnt to differentiate between Hindutva & Hinduism, has no longer any interest to know about Abrahamic religion plurality. In other words, Islam, an Abrahamic religion has been generalised to be an oppressive, bad one for singularity is harmful. The harmful side of singularity also happens to be an idea endorsed by liberal sections of Indian society.

The alternative BJP has offered to this is Hinduism. A religion carefully depicted to be plural, for it’s polytheistic nature. A average laymen here sees too labels “poly” and “single”. The idea of ” theism ” is vanished for it a theist is only understood to be an atheist by the middle class.

Perhaps, the BJP’s advantage is the majority belongs to Hinduism. Hinduism happens to be a henotheist religion. Henotheism is monotheism in principle and polytheism in practice. Thus, whenever needed vedic glory can be embraced in context of plurality. So who is been essentially projected “good” at the end of the day? A Hindu, perhaps a well read one (scripture wise). This happens to be a Brahmin, thus establishing Brahminical supremacy over vedant and knowledge.

This is perhaps in denial of the casteist nature of Hinduism. The primary reason for Hindutva, is the system of caste.
The system of othering is inherent in the religion that ironically also speaks of Vasudaiva Kutumbakam (the world is a family).
India with it’s distorted secularism has fueled the casteist fire even more.

Nonetheless, the belief of Hinduism to be different than Hindutva is from the idea that Hinduism once upon a time was good and has now been corrupted. However, instead of asking for religious reformation the demand is to revive back the previous glory.
But the past cannot be revived. There is no agreed picture of the past. What shall we revive?
Shall we revive the old habits of our people when the most scared of our castes indulged in all the abominations, as we now understand them, of animal food and intoxicating drink? Shall we revive the twelve forms of sons, or eight forms of marriage, which included capture, and recognised mixed and illegitimate intercourse? Shall we revive the hacatombs of animals sacrificed from year’s end to year’s end, in which even human beings were not spared as propitiatory offering to God? Shall we revive the Sati and infanticide customs.

What the BJP desires to do, is to convert prejudice to the question of righteousness.
This is by establishing numerous narratives in public to be picked and chosen. Then fight on, while they screw the economy.
Perhaps, the repeated emphasis on the term “Hindutva” at least in a differentiating manner has only helped the BJP than doing any harm.

The solution to communalism is rising above religion. But having made this distinguish, you no longer need to for it is supposed to be perfect. 

This is the root of the problem- the idea that your religion is absolute perfect. How can “my religion” be wrong isn’t? No no…I am mad to think so. Also immature to understand that being religious is different from being spiritual.

For it is already good, you no longer need to change it, what you need to is to outrage as to why your religion is being demeaned this way, by the “other” – the Hindutva. Well, that is precisely what BJP anyway wants you to do, think, and practice. The idea is to trap Indians by labels of morality. That is in denial that morality is subjective.

Hindutva claims their actions to be acts of “Dharmic” preservance. Dharm here is the Hindu religion. It wants to paint Hinduism with one colour that happens to be Saffron. Here, the liberal class raises objection, calling Hinduism to be multicoloured. However, what strikes not to the common man, that both mutually have an perception about Hinduism. Here is the problem, the existence of perceptions over definitions that have not been decided.

For the counter idea is no religion is oppressive. Oppression is the conviction of patriarchy. Patriarchy arises from majority insecurities, by men who have read no scripture. While this isn’t untrue, but here again patriarchy happens to have a scriptural thus religious association.

The idea that Hinduism is different from Hindutva rises from the belief that everything that’s let’s say “bad” in society, is due to some “misinterpretation” or later assertion to the holy books. However, this is not adding any brownie points to the neoliberal pandora box. Maybe, it was meant that way, or maybe it wasn’t? Who knows? You and I didn’t live then. This infallibility of the vedas, testament, and other such scriptures is the reason for our fallibility as sapiens.

The critical question then arises, who should be given the position to define Hinduism and why? How do we and why should we be deciding who is a “proper Hindu” and by what parameter? Who will decide the parameter? Will it be subjective or objective?

The answer lies in atheism, a perception that is not comfortable either by the majority and minorty.
The innate tendency to live in the past paints religion white (The majority again won).
Thus, we witness to types of politics in India, communal politics versus Identity politics. Intersectional is the answer, but those who demand it, do so from an anti-identity politics angle. This reduces down the idea of intersectionalism for it is anti-perception without acknowledging the perception. That is oppression. Lest, you cannot question the rage of the minority when they are been screwed from all sides.

After all, you are speaking for Muslims because they are the minorities. So you too are consciously identifying them (humans) with religion, defending it with religion (vedic hinduism). That only illustrates man’s inescapable nature to look over religion.

Ever read a headline saying “human dead” when a Muslim man was killed, without a “minorities are been attacked headline”. That is essentially because we love the word Muslim only in times of politics. This perhaps is because Hindians conciously deem Islam to be oppressive. Had we not, many lynchings could have been prevented in India, including the the present Karnataka ruckuss. This is happening because this is normal. This is normal because this accepted. It is not religion, it is majority preference.

We forget that all of us are conscious sinners, establishing a concrete idea “this is religion” adds more fuel to the burning fire. For that is what the BJP wants this battle to be fused with ideas of right and wrong, often that are multiple to create confusion and an eventual “dharm sankat” where both sides would be illustrated to be right.
This perhaps, explains why the issue of Hijab came in amidst the election season.

Indians go gaga over women who abstain from western clothing, wear ghunghat. But Hijab is objected on secularism grounds. The former isn’t religious but always associated with religion.
Hijab is not culture upliftment because for the majority culture means consciously Hinduism.
The comparison with ghunghat was both necessary and unnecessary; necessary for explanatory purpose and unnecessary because it is whataboutery.
This is what the BJP wants.

The BJP doesn’t desire to be anti-Muslim, it wants you to be so. The BJP is not against Hijab, neither does it want you to be. The BJP only wants you to be confused. You to be confused in the privileged quest, “Then, what is right?”

The reality stands, that BJP is not anti-Muslim, it is anti-human. Anti-democracy & anti-intellectual.
It desires is to make India a game of definitions than perceptions. To classify Indians in two extremes, by illustrating “what is religion”.
You are thinking the way they want you to.