Soros set up a University in Budapest. Orban shut it down. Why? It wasn't benefiting his country. Indeed, it is difficult to see which country it was benefitting. The following is the abstract of a public lecture Shruti Kapila gave there titled 'HISTORY AS VIOLENCE: HINDUTVA’S WAR AND THE BATTLEFIELD OF INDIA'.
What violence has Indian witnessed in the last century?
1) a small amount of 'Revolutionary' violence against the British. This was not specifically Hindu. It included radicals of various descriptions. However, ex-Revolutionaries from the twenties on did foresee partition and created a Hindu party similar to the Muslim party which gained strength after 1922 and finally established its supremacy in the elections of 1946
2) Partition violence. Here Muslims, Sikhs, Dogras and some Congress Hindus played the leading role. The RSS and Mahasabha played second fiddle because the INC was the muscular Hindu party par excellence. Similarly, in Pakistan, the Army which was initially 'secular' dominated the Islamists.
3) Secessionist violence. Hinduism had nothing to do with this
4) Naxal violence- again nothing to do with Hindutva.
5) post-Babri riots. In each and every case the Muslims started it and then paid a disproportionate price. It appears that some at least of this violence was politically instrumentalized. The triumph of Hindutva puts an end to such violence because the expectation is that the instigators will get shot immediately.
Hindutva has not had to wage any war purely because 80 percent of the population is Hindu. Moreover, it appears that it is always possible, by paying a little money, to get some Muslims to start a riot which, predictably, ends with the minority taking disproportionate losses. But this isn't war- it is, at best, whackamole. No doubt, there is an electoral battlefield and in Mamta's Bengal that does mean violence- but only after she wins not before lest the Election Commission take action. On the other hand even Mamta's goons can be brought to heel by the threat of President's rule.
Why does the rise of Hindutva mean less violence and History having to turn to economic and social factors? The answer is simple. Hindutva is about getting Hindus to play nice with each other irrespective of caste or region. It is merely an ecumenism and naturally reduces internecine conflict. It may be argued that this poses a threat to Muslims but Muslims get stomped by everybody, including Sikhs and Christians and atheists, if they run amok. In the past twenty years Muslims have been pounded by bombs and drone strikes by the armies of a huge array of countries. China, of course, went the extra mile and is 're-educating' the entire population of a huge province. Even Muslim nations are killing or incarcerating Islamists who run amok or who look as though they might run amok. Currently, in the UK, there are 40,000 Islamists who are on a watch-list. The French have put a thousand mosques and Muslim cultural centers under surveillance. The NYT has an article claiming that there is a quiet Muslim flight from France.
What makes Islamist movements different from Hindutva? The answer is that the former are sectarian. They harbor hatred, or have reason to want revenge against, rival sects. By contrast, though there may be rivalry between Hindutva outfits- e.g. Shiv Sena & BJP or, previously, Hindu Mahasabha vs RSS supported BJP leaders- and quite bitter animosity between specific Hindutva leaders- there has been no bloodshed. Indeed, the sort of internecine violence which existed historically- e.g. between rival Jain sects or antagonistic leaders of Hindu monastic sects- has declined or disappeared. Whereas previously good people would contribute money to hire goons to eject the goons of the rival sect, they scorn to do so now. The thing will be tied up in Court while a modus vivendi is hammered out.
Older people like me were sure that, when the Bench made the Ayodhya judgment, the BJP would mishandle the situation. Some Baba or the other would feel miffed and you'd have a bunch of naked guys with tridents marching around creating trouble. Maybe COVID helped. Or maybe Hindu acceptance of Hindutva means we are finally getting over our atavistic instinct to grab hold off agricultural implements and crack each other's heads open ad maiorem Dei gloriam. Personally, I deplore this outcome. I firmly believe that it is because young men nowadays- what with their 'six pack' and good grooming- are all homos. You can see them talking and laughing freely with girls. I even saw one nephew of mine kissing his 'girl-friend'. Only gay people behave in such an effeminate manner. His own mother told me that the boy sleeps with this girl. Her parents are fine with it. Obviously this is because the boy is as queer as 3 Rupee note!
Often described
by liars
as ‘conspiratorial’
right! The biggest political party in India is a 'conspiracy'!
and a form of ‘crypto nationalism’,
Why 'crypto'? It is openly nationalist. But then the Indian National Congress started off as Nationalistic. It is only recently that it has become anti-National.
Hindutva (political Hinduism/Hindu nationalism) was articulated simultaneously with Gandhi’s assertion and signature politics of nonviolence in the last century.
No. It was 'articulated' before Gandhi asserted anything. He was reacting to Savarkar and Dhingra and Lal, Bal & Pal, when he wrote 'Hind Swaraj'. He said he was 'Sanatani' as opposed to Arya Samaji (though his dad did keep contact with the Arya Samaj after his own 'Pushtimarga' hit a rough patch after its leader was discovered to be a syphilitic cunt who slept with the wives of his disciples). However, by the time Gandhi surrendered in 1922, it was obvious that 'dyarchy' would evolve into Provincial autonomy and finally, once a Federal Government at the Center had been set up, Dominion Status. The only question that remained was whether the Muslims would accept a common nationality or insist on a separate Muslim state which could forcibly convert or ethnically cleanse kaffirs and move in the direction of Sharia law etc.
Hindutva was a name to bridge the empty gap between the political and Hinduism.
There was no such gap. The cow-protection movement had given the INC a 'mass contact' vehicle as the then Viceroy noticed. The Muslim League too found there was no 'empty gap' between the political and Islam. The odd thing was that the Shias, including the Ismailis, supported Khilafat though the Caliph was Hanafi.
Secrecy,
Was only needful for Revolutionaries- but, by the Twenties, they were Leftists not Hindutvadis.
fraternity,
Was unnecessary. Hindus don't need to be hugging and kissing and bumping fists all the time. Anyway, our wives beat us or if they don't then they can say some really mean things. At such times, brothers are no use. Only Mummy or big Sister can come and fight your battles for you. Sadly, stringent anti-dowry laws mean a wife can always throw her mother-in-law and sister-in-laws in jail while the men abscond so as to earn money to pay for lawyers.
territory in as much as blood and the significance of history and its writing were foundational to the conceptual repertoire of Hindutva.
Everybody is attached to territory. The question is, are Hindutvadis trying to conquer any territory? The answer is no. So the thing does not really feature in the 'conceptual repertoire' of Hindutva. But it does in the laws of the Indian Nation State.
The overarching idea of war and the political as a war formation,
is severely missing in Hindutva just as it is severely missing in ecumenical movements in Christianity. No doubt, Kapila thinks the YMCA is a 'war formation'. As for the Salvation Army- it is obviously a terrorist organization of some sort.
rendered Hindutva a specifically twentieth century ideology.
I think it is a twenty first century ideology. Only about ten years after liberalization did I see the grip of caste relax on even middle class, urban, anglophile Indians. I think, this had already happened for better educated NRIs in the Eighties. It started to happen in India for the same reason- viz. both parties could earn well and divorce was no longer a big issue.
Another reason Hindutva has become normative is because higher disposable income means we can be exploratory in our Religion. We visit 'teerths' not traditionally visited in our lineage. Even in remote places, the local pandes would be able to spot a likely 'first time' visitor and quickly enroll him as a client. This meant that the next time you visit, you already have a pande. This is quite flattering. You naturally bring your son a few years down the line. This creates a 'dual track' cosmopolitanism. You mention the foreign University you attended and the foreign MNC office you put in a couple of years at, but you also casually let drop the names of the different teerths you visit with your family. The Upper Class may smile at your naivete, but if your wealth is increasing rapidly, they are forced to be polite. They might even give you the name of their own Purohit or Jyotish or whatever.
In elaborating these themes, and contrary to dominant understanding,
I suppose she means the dominant understanding amongst Leftist pedants holed up in shitty University Departments
I argue that Hindutva is not the expression of ‘Hindu nationalism’ signifying a variant form of Indian nationalism, authentic, hidden or fabricated. Instead, as a distinct theory of violence, Hindutva as elaborated by its ideologue, is a series of conditions of enmity for a potential and new fraternity.
No. Others may pick fights with Hindutva but, in the process, they get carried away and say nasty things about Hinduism, Hindus and the Indian Nation State. This naturally backfires. Only a Soros or an Omidyar will finance them. Perhaps the Carter Center will hire them. But for how long? The bottom has fallen out of that market.
As a political idea, Hindutva conceptualised enmity as perpetual while detaching India from its territorial specificities and transforming it into a battlefield.
No. Hindutva made things better for Hindus by allowing them to break with caste without becoming 'outcaste' or having to embrace some paranoid ideology. Modi and Yogiji and so forth show that the administration can be improved. India need not be an utter shithole for all time to come. The good news is that the rise of Hindutva has encouraged the rise of 'Common Man' type movements. If a comedian can become C.M of Punjab, then the mold of Indian politics has well and truly been broken. Violence is foolish. Voters want 'deliverables'. Even Mamta may curb the violence of her goons. There can be no question that Stalin and Vijayan want to do so. They have big plans for their States. Kapila, sadly, has chosen to remain ignorant of all these developments. Assuming she is Punjabi, this is not because she is stupid. She is just very very badly- but very expensively- educated.
The message here is don't study worthless shite at Uni- even if Soros is paying for it- because, if you do, your brains will turn to shit.
No comments:
Post a Comment