Crisis of identiry: will a sectarian renaissance cure it?

It is strange that some people still harbour the illusion of an identity that would solve all our problems. A powerful dominant section in Maharashtra appropriates selected stories and images of Shivaji for its own political and cultural end. The end is exclusionary and partisan. The Maratha ruler in his time and context of history was not what some people would like everyone to believe as they believe. Equestrian statues of the Maratha king are in galore. The one near the Gateway of India where the tourists throng is enough. Interestingly the tourists crowd the piers of the Gateway to view the sea rather than look back at who is riding post haste with a raised sword and giving a clarion call. Having another off the shore from the Marine Drive would be another tourist attraction. The mighty statue of Rana Pratap Singh at Udaipur is splendid in terms of tourist attraction. Certain aspects of mass aggressive tendencies have so overwhelmed the common psyche of groups that they ascribe the same to the legendary figures of the past and make them mascots of present day political configurations and aspirations.

That such an identity would be appropriated by the ones filled with passionate intensity and the communalists for their interest to score over others is a forgone conclusion. Babu Bajrangi did not mince words when he referred to slaughtering Muslims in their hundreds and boasted, “Maza aata hai na, sahib. [I enjoy it]… I cam back after I killed them them (sic), called up the home minister and went to sleep… I felt like Rana Pratap, that I had done something like Maharana Pratap..I’d heard stories about him, but that day I did what he did himself. “ (Tehelka November 3, 2007)

The main purpose behind this skewed recourse to history is revivalism and not what some mistakenly believe a renaissance of a section of the society.

However, you cannot have a renaissance for the asking. If it is a rebirth of learning, as it really is, it is a secular matter. There has been revival of the mythical or mythological stories through television serials, like the Ramayna or the Maharbharat. That did produce revivalism and the whole movement of Ramjanam bhoomi that reached a climax in the demolition of the historic mosque at Ayodhya. It was craftily choreographed to win votes. We are still paying for it and perhaps nobody would like to have another such movement. Not the least in the name of a mythical bridge. There is already a conviction that we had had an Indian renaissance at the turn of the nineteenth century. Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Tagore were the fruits of that renaissance. Wanting another so soon is wishful thinking. Even so the ‘rebirth of learning’ has now been replaced by a much more revolutionary thing: the web. How much can anyone drink from a hose? The metaphor of the hose of water is apt as the net is ever enlarging the scope of knowledge. Knowledge is no more stored in any space that would lead to the spread of learning if it falls into hostile hands and artists and artisans migrate. Rebirth of learning in Europe also saw the Greek philosophers finding a new life after they hibernated with the Arabs. Will a renaissance in the name of religion lead to such rebirth? For an Iqbal or a Hussein, for example?

In the age of the internet, globalization and corporations there is need for a composite identity that is not only national but also tolerant. When the tiger roared at the lamb drinking water down the stream, it gave excuse that the lamb was polluting the water. And when the lamb replied that the water was flowing from the tiger to him, the tiger hit back saying that the lamb’s ancestors had done so. For the ills of society when people like Bal Thackeray, Subramanian Swamy and others, ala RSS, find scapegoat in Muslims it is high time to either dismiss them or take them seriously. All of them want to go back to pre British India to define identity of Indians, which they believe is essentially Hindu in character. Even if, for the sake of argument, we come to an agreement that we all have Hindu identity how are we going to solve the problems of unemployment, indebted farmers, insurgency in various parts of the country. Tamil tigers and Naxalites are essentially Hindu. Struggle for determining one’s homeland is as violent in the north east as it is across the Palk Strait.

Religion per se does not make its followers backward or forward in material terms. Therefore reserving jobs for the backward, be they Hindus or Muslims or anyone, is based on survey and findings. There has already been reservation based on religious identity of the Hindus. But it was extended to certain Muslims only recently on account of their backwardness. Thackeray not only calls it doling out of alms of concessions [saulatinchi khairat] but as a danger to the unity of the country. Because any reservation to Muslims would push the country into the abyss of another partition [dusraya phadni chya khol]. It implies that they are not trustworthy, hence their perfidy. Thus suspicion is created around that identity.

Defining group identity on what happened in1947 and viewing it as a crisis is forgetting one’s roots. Blaming Muslims for the partition and attributing “perfidy” [treachery] as the hallmark of their identity (as Swamy does in Is Hindu Reanaissance the Answer? Covert June 1-15, 2008, and Bal Thackeray in his letter to the Prime Minister, Samna, September 13, 2007) is banal.

Some people have become so schizophrenic that they want to live as if what happened in 1947 did not transpire. Thus they believe that the pre British India was still there for them, intact. They are just like the ukil babu or the lawyer in Shadow Lines of Amitav Ghosh. Their denial of 1947 is essentially the denial of the partition of India. Even if, again for sake of argument, we reverse history then the bulk of the hordes of talibans of Afghanistan and the North West Province of Pakistan would be at our door steps everywhere. That might not be very enviable, I suppose. The Indian Muslims would not like anymore tampering with history for they know very well that they have paid and are still paying for those who wanted their ‘pure’ land and got it and left the consequences for the Muslims of India to bear.