The Wire
Mis-understanding Mohan Bhagwat | Alishan Jafri and Apoorvanand
Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty
Every
time Mohan Bhagwat speaks in public, a group or another complains that
he has targeted them and then at least one prominent media house is
blamed for misquoting him.
Welcome to Deogarh, Uttar Pradesh ये हैं उत्तर प्रदेश का भव्य देवगढ़ _ Travel Nfx
00:28 / 03:09
It
seems as if reporters never reach out to Bhagwat for a quote. They go
to him for misquotes. He then gives them the misquote which naturally
ends up offending some people. He then tells them, “Oh sorry, that’s not
my quote. That’s my misquote.”
Often, this aggrieved group is the Muslim minority. But oddly it’s the Brahmins this time.
In the past one month, at least two criminal complaints were filed against Bhagwat, the chief of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, or the Sarsanghchalak as
he is affectionately called in the Sangh Parivar’s lingo. What might be
astonishing for many observers is the fact that both these complaints
were filed by pro-Hindutva activists who somehow feel that Bhagwat’s
comments are prima facie anti-Hindu and anti-Brahmin.
This is disconcerting for observers
because most Hindutva critics view the Sangh Parivar and its support
base as a monolith wherein every follower obeys and never questions the
decision of the top leadership, which is perhaps partly correct in the
context of elections and the BJP’s political masterstrokes. In that
context, what Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Bharatiya Janata Party
and the RSS have achieved in the past decade is a seemingly absolute
political consolidation of a Hindu electorate that has been carved out
from various caste groups and a brazen political exclusion of
minorities, particularly the Muslims.
This
includes an active outreach to the communities within the Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes.
Contrary to its claims of a ‘Hindu
first’ politics, the BJP has rather mastered the art of strategic caste
and ethnic politics across states. The BJP’s traditional support base,
the Brahmins and other ‘upper’ castes, seemed to have made peace with
these new realities but the question of caste-based reservation and the
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act continues to haunt them.
These various caste alliances and
their underlying contradictions are carefully but hurriedly glossed over
with the help of a virulent anti-Muslim rhetoric that cuts across
society, a tight grip over public institutions, and a pliant mainstream
media ready to stoop to daily lows in its ambushes on the opposition and
Muslims. It informs critics that the BJP has achieved an invincible
formula to maintain its hold over India.
However, if we keep aside this
intimidating political arithmetic and focus on the recent attack and
cultural backlash against Bhagwat and the RSS, it demonstrates the wider
social contradictions in the vision of the RSS and other less popular
Hindutva movements that are not ready to give up caste privilege in
exchange of just Muslim-baiting.
It is advisable to view this apparent anger against Bhagwat in the
context of these contradictions in the Hindutva universe that are not as
ideologically homogeneous as it appears to be. Before we talk about
these contradictions, let us examine why Bhagwat ended up triggering a
prominent section of the Hindu right at least twice.
The first complaint against Bhagwat was filed for his allegedly “pro-LGBTQ” views and comments on the Hindu deity Krishna
that he made during an interview. The interview had predominantly
grabbed headlines for Bhagwat’s anti-Muslim diatribe in which he had
asked Muslims to give up what he described as their belligerent
supremacy and justified Hindu extremism as a natural response of a
victimised society at war since the last 1,000 years.
He had also claimed that the Hindu
civilisation has traditionally acknowledged the LGBTQ community.
According to the complaint, Bhagwat’s interview with the two RSS
mouthpieces, Panchanjanya and Organiser, endorsed and
associated homosexuality with Hindu religious figures. Bhagwat has also
been accused of making inflammatory remarks against Krishna.
The complaint alleged that Bhagwat’s
depiction of Hans and Dimbaka as a gay couple or that they felt
“attraction towards each other” is not factually correct. The
complainants cited the Sri Harivansh Puran as having carried the actual version of this “historical incidence”. Further, Bhagwat was accused of calling Krishna a cheater. This
was followed by a torrent of angry comments and messages by
traditionalists. A section of rightwing activists demanded Bhagwat
apologise and the two Sangh mouthpieces take down the alleged
“anti-Hindu” comments.
With little oxygen from the media, the campaign ended abruptly.
However, two week later when Bhagwat
was perhaps attempting to firefight Samajwadi Party leader Swami Prasad
Maurya’s campaign against Ramcharitmanas, he criticised the caste system and said, “Caste was created by Pandits,” triggering widespread expressions of resentment amongst Brahmins.
As the cauldron of popular anger against Bhagwat turned red, the RSS tried to water it down with a carefully worded clarification circulated
in the media. The corrigendum claimed that Bhagwat was not targeting
Brahmins by mentioning the word ‘Pandit,’ rather he was referring to
‘some scholars’ since the word ‘pandit‘, in Marathi, means ‘scholar’, and that he has been misquoted.
Our north Indian Hindi speaking minds
didn’t agree with this explanation but the more generous speakers of
the language within the Hindutva fold seemed to meekly claim that
perhaps Bhagwat was actually misquoted.
The word ‘pandit’ in the English language refers to ‘scholar’, the same meaning Bhagwat claimed it had in Marathi, the language in which he delivered his speech.
Bhagwat’s clarification, however, didn’t sit well with independent Hindutva ideologues.
Also read: ‘Pandits’: Amidst Controversy Over RSS Chief’s Remark, Hindu Godmen Defend Caste System
As of now, the most prominent Hindu religious figures: the Shankaracharya of Puri and Dwarka have publicly attacked Bhagwat.
When
asked to react to Bhagwat’s comments by a devotee, Nischalananda
Saraswati, the Puri Shankaracharya, appeared to defend the caste system
and slammed Bhagwat. “The name of the first Brahmin is Brahma ji.
You should study the scriptures. All the sciences and arts in the world
are explained by Brahmins alone. Education, defence and other services
should always be balanced. If we do not accept the Sanatan [literally
eternal truths, used to refer to a version of Hinduism] system, then
what system should be there?” he asked.
Responding to Bhagwat’s
clarification, Shankaracharya Swami Avimukteshwaranand said, Bhagwat is
saying that God did not create this (caste system), they have been made
by Pandits. Then he says that ‘Pandit’ means ‘scholar’ and not
‘Brahmin’. If scholars have said something then why are you denying it?”
the Shankaracharya asked.
The less charitable ones in the community of godmen,
who are widely renowned for their anti-Muslim statements – like
Paramhans and Narsinghanand – called Bhagwat anti-national and
anti-Hindu.
This controversy is not limited to a war of words. Last week, an alleged BJP leader opened fire at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader in Moradabad of Uttar Pradesh, reportedly because of an argument over Bhagwat’s ‘Pandit’ remark.
The controversy has given insight into the simmering differences within the Hindutva universe over the question of caste
as it has opened a small window into the Sangh Parivar’s own lack of
debate on how to navigate the growing concerns of the ‘upper’ castes
over a resurgent Ambedkarite discourse in which the caste system and
associated Hindu beliefs receive unsparing criticism.
Bhagwat is not alone in antagonising this section of the Hindu right. We
have seen how PM Modi often gets in the crosshairs with the
traditionalists for some of his rare utterances bearing some semblance
of secular civility.
However, secularism is no more the
biggest worry of the traditionalist camp. A strong section of ‘upper’
caste right-wingers think that the BJP government is appeasing the
so-called anti-Hindu, Ambedkarite and Bahujan groups. With the BJP being
unable to strongly respond to emboldened Bahujan politicians like
Rajendra Pal Gautam, Swami Prasad Maurya or Chandra Shekhar who have not
shied away from their Ambedkarite views on the caste system and the
religious texts that defend it, this anger of the Brahmin right-wing has
come out in the open.
Bhagwat is thus in a tricky spot. He
can’t retract his comments totally (he never does) and he can’t also
claim that he meant what he said. An explicitly violent campaign against
Ambedkarite leaders and parties may even end up consolidating all Dalit
communities in favour of Ambedkarite politics. Not responding at all would create a need to look for more radical caste supremacist alternatives to the Sangh Parivar.
But
even Bhagwat’s sympathisers would agree with his critics that his
clarification is sketchy. If Bhagwat was not referring to Brahmins when
he talked about the so-called ‘Pandits who have polluted Hindu texts
with caste propaganda then Bhagwat should simply name all those
scholars, who in his view, are guilty and should be held accountable of
this humongous sin of creating disunity amongst Hindus by adding caste
supremacy in their texts.
He should then, by a rational
extension of his own clarification, also mention the particular texts
that according to him have been polluted by this propaganda.
Since Bhagwat is widely recognised as
one of the biggest well-wishers of Hindus, he’s almost duty bound to
name those ‘Pandits.’ In case he doesn’t do that, then common Hindus who
follow him might end up getting confused. This would cast undue
aspersions on scriptures and the Pandits wrote since Bhagwat left his
comments open to public interpretation.
Moreover, as some Bhagwat critics
argue, this ‘open to interpretation’ clarification can solidify what the
so-called ‘anti-Hindu’ influencers have to say about the question of
caste. This is what happened when Swami Prasad Maurya endorsed and
welcomed Bhagwat’s comments.
On a more serious note, let us try to
understand what these apparent contradictions mean for the non-Indic
religion people, especially Muslims and Christians.
First, one can see that the RSS no longer controls the violent Hindutva network.
In the last decade several big and
small gangs and organisations have emerged all over India which are not
affiliated to the RSS the way BJP, Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad,
VHP and numerous other organisations are. But without the long and
sustained work by the RSS and the establishment of the national ‘Hindu
Rashtra’ under Narendra Modi, it would have been difficult, if not
impossible for them to thrive.
Scores
of organisations like Ram Sene and Hindu Yuva Vahini have little
consideration for the occasional preaching of sanity by Bhagwat. They
are not guided by the need to indulge in pseudo-intellection as Bhagwat
and his colleagues love to do. Why, even the members of the RSS know
that they are mere words. We suspect that Bhagwat also knows what he
says is not for his base or the larger Hindutva network.
This is what the Muslim or Christian
elites need to understand when they approach RSS to secure peace for
themselves. It is foolish to expect the so-called ‘fringe Hindutva’
groups to cease what they are doing because the RSS asks them to.
It is also true that the influence of the ‘Shankaracharyas’ on the
thinking of Hindus is highly overrated. We have not seen Hindus paying
attention to what they say.
The capacity of Bhagwat to effect a
rethinking among the followers of the ideology of Hindutva is limited.
As said earlier, he also does not intend it. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be
changing his ground on the question of Muslims being equal Indians or
the issue of caste.
If we assume that Brahmins didn’t create this system, even then the
moot question is whether the system should go or not? What are the
efforts that the RSS is taking towards annihilation of caste? It
recruits members from SC and ST communities in the army of Hindutva but
what does it do to achieve equality within the Hindu society?
Even when we read about Dalits trying
to gain entry to temples, we don’t read of RSS playing any role there.
Neither have we ever come across any news of the RSS undertaking any
campaign to end violence against SCs in daily Hindu life. Its ‘upper’
caste base knows that the RSS would do nothing to take away the
privilege it has enjoyed for eternity. Hierarchies would remain as they
have been, the only ground where these historically segregated caste
groups are allowed to meet is the battle ground against Muslims and
Christians.
The present day RSS leadership also knows well that it cannot control Narendra Modi.
Its decision to come out in support of Gautam Adani is a demonstration of the fact that it is compelled to make available all its resources to Narendra Modi.
As Dhirendra K. Jha has shown, with his extensive and deep
understanding of the way the Hindutva network operates, the RSS is now
subservient to the wishes of Narendra Modi. It cannot rebel against him
also because of what his rule has secured for the RSS and its
leadership. An RSS worker explained it very simply, “When in the history
of the RSS would pracharaks and its leaders have imagined that they
would get the comfort that is now available to them? Which
Sarsanghchalak would have thought that he would be treated as the
national thinker and his speeches would be telecast live from all
channels? Can they leave this comfort? The only way for them to maintain
it is by keeping Narendra Modi and the likes in power.”
The political economy of the violent
Hindutva network needs to be understood. It is related to local control:
social, political and economic. Violence creates influencers and leaders. It is the first step of their career path. And a necessary component of their politics. It is impossible to do away with it.
Those
who think that once they achieve power they’ll desist from indulging in
it need to explain the dog-whistling of Narendra Modi and Amit Shah
against Muslims and Christians. What is the meaning of the warning of Amit Shah to the Kannadigas against Kerala? What is the explanation of the call of the Karnataka BJP chief to eliminate the followers of Tipu Sultan?
What does the RSS have to say about these violent exhortations?
Leaving
these aside, how is a listener to make sense of Bhagwat’s talk of a
“thousand-year warfare which has forced Hindus to become violent?” We
can see that Bhagwat is trying to prove that he can be the leader of the
wider Hindu society while at the same time assuring the violent lot
that he continues to be their patron.
Thus any strategy to combat the ever-expanding network of Hindutva will need a rethink in the light of the above.
