Hindu silence, extremist noise

In the arrest of the Kanchi Shankaracharya, the Sangh Parivar sees an opportunity to win back its ‘core constituency’. The manner of arrest can only help the Sangh in mobilising support. In fact, the Tamil Nadu police could have been more circumspect and courteous in this case. However, the Sangh’s demand of a separate law or set of procedures for detaining dharmacharyas is a prescription for the end of rule of law and a cause for alarm. Some worthies in the BJP have gone to the extent of demanding a constitutional amendment to this effect, so that Hindu sentiment is not hurt in the future! Others have equated the status of the Shankaracharya with the Pope. This deliberately ignores the fact that in the Hindu order of things, the four Shankaracharyas (heading the mutts established by the Adi-Shankara) are supposed to be equal in status, none can claim even to be ‘first among equals’. The Kanchi mutt in fact was not even established by him, it is a later addition. Hindu Dharma has no papacy; the absence of a central authority not only in practice, but also more importantly even in theory and imagination crucially distinguishes Hinduism from other major religious traditions. Scholars of Hinduism have considered this distinction a unique strength over the centuries. But the votaries of the Hindutva politics are actually embarrassed with this uniqueness. They have so internalised the Semitic religions as the norm of religiosity that they want to invent a papacy in Hinduism as well.

But the attempted invention of papacy is only a part of the package. Like any form of the identity politics, Hindutva must create a psychopathic persecution complex. Hence the attempt to transform an essentially legal problem into a symbol of Hindu dharma in danger! Questioning the manner of arrest is perfectly valid, but to demand a separate law for religious figures is quite another. Governance draws sustenance from the idea of certain universal values that transcend culture and tradition. These values are the rule of law and a secular notion of citizenship. The politics of identity without a commitment to some notion of universal values are bound to be opposed to the rule of law and the idea of secular citizenship. The so-called representatives of ‘‘identity’’ refuse to meet any verifiable criteria yet they claim to speak on behalf of an entire social and cultural group. The Sangh dismisses secular values as the ‘‘ills of modernity’’.

But in India, religious traditions and deeply religious people have been living quite happily with these ‘‘ills of modernity’’. In fact, they have been participating in the processes rooted in the secular notion of citizenship, quite creatively adopting it to their specific needs and situations. A very traditional, rural Hindu woman not only exercises her franchise with gusto, but makes her own political and moral choices as well, thus using the space provided by this notion. She does not find the ‘‘alien’’ system restricting or inauthentic.

Story continues below this ad

It is this politics of identity defined by‘‘ancestrally determined identity’’ which forecloses any interrogation of such monopoly claims. That is the real import of the Sangh’s demand for a separate law for religious leaders. It is only the first step in the direction of destroying the entire edifice of a democratic polity which rests on the premise that all citizens are equal in the eyes of the law.

This demand is so likely to be rejected by people themselves that it must be couched in terms of religious sentiments and cultural identity in order to avert that rejection. In this particular case, the strategy is unfolding along expected lines. To begin with, the Shankaracharya’s arrest must be projected as an assault on Hinduism, then blame must be placed directly or indirectly at the door of the perpetual ‘Other’, Sonia Gandhi, and then follows an attempt to question not only the practice of Indian secularism but also the very notion of secular citizenship.

From the point of view of the believing Hindu, as distinct from those brainwashed into Hindutva, it is painful to see that a moment so grave is being trivialised for petty political gain, but again, the issues at stake are not petty. These are not moments to undermine democratic institutions. Instead it is a moment of introspection for the community as a whole. One can hear this introspection in the grave silence which sits among ordinary Hindus, who know intrinsically that dharma howsoever interpreted implies a moral code, which is neither immutable nor just an euphemism for politicking. So far, the believing Hindu has refused to buy the ‘‘attack on Hinduism’’ line of the Sangh, and have shown a dignified preference for introspection instead of instigation.

The writer is professor of Hindi literature at Jawaharlal Nehru University