“Congress Mukt Bharat” was not an ordinary election slogan, but an announcement of the arrival of a new political era. The BJP espouses Hindu Rashtra and is determined to establish it in India with a view towards “Akhand Bharat”. When cultural and religious identities converge in the hands of politicians, democracy cannot survive the tidal wave. We, Indians, live in a secular democracy: government of the people, by the people, for the people, and the leaders are duty-bound to uphold the common good out of respect for the common will. And the established institutions serve as the vital veins that keep democracy afloat. In contrast, “Hindu Rashtra” is incompatible with democracy. Its outlook and definition are autocracy. The Hindu Rashtra upholds only the will of the ruler or king and certainly denounces common will as an obstacle. The BJP’s recent stalemate in Parliament speaks volumes about their intention: “Silence the opposition”. In a democracy, freedom of speech is one of the pillars, whereas in an autocracy, freedom of speech is a crime.
Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera’s detentions for a slip of the tongue were a clear message to the nation. The now famous and infamous interview by Karan Thapar with the then-CM of Gujarat and, subsequently, Thapar losing his job, was a prelude. Those supporting Hindu Rashtra will not tolerate free speech particularly when directed at the ruling regime. Any criticism of the Prime Minister becomes anti-national, and rightly so, for in an autocracy, ruler and State are synonymous. The Opposition is puzzled, and their confusion is not unfounded. Everything that has occurred in our country since 2014 has been detrimental to democracy. It is the clash of a tidal wave of civilisation.
What has transpired since 2014? For those who contemplate, it’s obvious. Democracy and Hindu Rashtra are on the verge of colliding. Most people of this nation are cosy about it, not realising the reality of living under autocratic rule. In the name of religion and pseudo-nationalism, freedom and dignity of humans are sacrificed on the altar of authoritarian power. Not all are willing to sacrifice their freedom and dignity on this altar. In 2015, a number of writers and poets returned their Sahitya Akademi Award—it was called “Award Wapsi”—in protest against rising violence and intolerance. They believed that there was rising intolerance in the country under the present dispensation. Their stance is justified. Ashok Vajpayee was the first litterateur to announce his intention to return his Sahitya Akademi award. After him, 39 scholars followed suit and returned their Sahitya Akademi awards. The Godi Media made light of “Award Wapsi” and created a discourse to suit their autocratic narrative by vitiating the motives of those willing to live and die for freedom and dignity. Godi Media is helping to usher in the Hindu Rashtra at the behest of their masters, who have paid them well, and they make no comms about it.
L K Advani led the BJP’s Hindu nationalism movement in the 80s and 90s. It was for the first time since Independence that the terms ‘Hindu and Indian’ were sought to be made interchangeable. Advani launched an all-out attack on what he had described as the pseudo-secularism of the Congress and all other secular parties and intellectuals. The demolition of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya and the subsequent construction of the Ram Temple signified the killing of democracy and the establishment of the Hindu Rashtra. The VHP’s “Ekatmata “(unity) campaign, and the slogan “is desh mein rahna hoga toh ‘Vande Mataram’ kehna hoga” had made an appearance. It was accompanied by “Yeh desh Hinduon ka, nahin kisike baap ka”. The nature of the Hindu Rashtra, as ascribed by those promoting it, is that a total of 543 members will be elected for the ‘Parliament of Religions’. As per the Constitution, Varanasi will replace New Delhi as the country’s capital. Besides, there is a proposal to build a “Parliament of Religions” in Kashi (Varanasi). The new system will abolish the rules and regulations of the British era and everything will be conducted on the basis of the ‘Varna’ system. According to the draft, Muslims and Christians would be welcome in the country to do their businesses, get employed, get an education, and enjoy all the facilities that are enjoyed by any common citizen, but they won’t be allowed to use their franchise. “Is desh mein rahna hoga, toh Hindu banke rahna hoga”. The slogan “Congress Mukt Bharat” was no ordinary election jingle; it had a strong undercurrent of Hindu Rashtra and put an end to democracy.
The clash of civilisations is on display. The outrage by the opposition, particularly by Rahul Gandhi, with regard to the slow and steady demise of democracy is not unwarranted. The bold statement made by Rahul Gandhi during the ‘Bharat Jodo Yatra’, in Parliament and in the United Kingdom should have been conceived as healthy criticism to introspect and uphold the Constitution instead the ruling dispensation is up in arms. Nonetheless, it should not come as a surprise. Many were quite supportive of the government when Article 370 was abolished undemocratically. When the Citizen Amendment Act was passed by Parliament in 2019, the majority hailed it. Anti-conversion laws are passed by different States that go against human rights, individual consciences, and our Constitution, but the majority don’t give a damn about them. Those who advocate democracy are thus naive, and their continued insistence on democratising the system will only antagonise the ruling dispensation, which is hell-bent on establishing the Hindu Rashtra. Apologies and requests for forgiveness from the opposition by the king are the talk of the country. Are Indians pleased with this demand? It appears so, as the poll results speak for themselves. But I am reminded of the words of Martin Niemoller: “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.” Can we and should we resist the tidal wave of civilization or let it befall us?
(Peter Fernandes is a Priest based at Pilar, Goa)