Hi, Here's something I wrote after the judgement. It is still a thought-in-progress, so would like to know what you think. As an aside, Biju, your mail prompted me to start this thread. I think the pasta fairy deserves a dedicated thread.
Here goes: Who is Mahant Nritya Gopal Das? If you are Hindu, you need to know who he is. For he said, “It is not a question of victory or defeat for any section of society. There is no need for grand celebrations by the Hindus over the court’s judgment. If at all, they want to rejoice over the court’s verdict, they should do it inside their place of residence.” “We are happy that the High Court has recognised the historical fact that the Ramjanmabhoomi temple existed at the disputed site. We are also pleased that the court respected the faith and sentiments of the vast majority of Hindus that the Ram Janmabhoomi temple existed at the disputed site and also the right of Hindus to perform puja at the temple.” First, he instructs the Hindus on how to celebrate, and next he talks of what is “the sentiments of the vast majority of Hindus.” I have exposure to a small set of Hindus. These are people of broadly two categories. One don't do any thing associated with being a Hindu, go to a temple for starters, which includes me. The other set, goes to temples, believe in a God of their choosing, and celebrate festivals with enthusiasm, prepare feasts and invite the former set to join in, which they do, happily. Both these sets were uniformly appalled when Ram Sene beat up women in a pub. They were deeply angry, disgusted, and sickened when kar sevaks demolished the Babri Masjid. They all condemned the Gujrat pogrom without equivocation. They are all Hindus. Question is, are they the Hindus being referred to by this Mahant chap? When this question is asked, people from both the sets quickly say something, the gist of which is roughly this: “This VHP/RSS/BJP do not represent Hinduism. Hinduism, unlike other religions, does not have any central authority. It isn't organised, so to speak.” So, it boils down to this. We are also Hindus. The Mahant is also a Hindu. But we are not the Hindus which Mr. Mahant is talking about. There’s something contradictory in the above sentence. There’s a nuance that is not conveyed. Let me try again. My mother loves to decorate window sills with mud lamps on Dipavali. Another friend insists on burning crackers during every festival, screw the environmentalists, she says. One friend grooves to devotional music, hymns, songs, and other rhyming jingles filled with a string of adjectives about some God. Yet another friend has a blog on Hindu philosophy. Another person close to me loves to go to Sabarimala every year. For each of them, being Hindu, and expressing it means so many things. A sense of community, resurrection of childhood memories, aesthetic pleasure, intellectual satisfaction, or just plain joy. There’s also a sense of the spiritual, cognizance of a supreme force that explains why she fell in love only with him. There’s a sense of marvel, or wonderment that accompanies it. There’s also the simplistic, all-important emotional crutch – someone to blame, someone to murmur to before that driving test. The tiny idol is a talisman to hold and touch. The divine has a long story, and connecting with it gives a sense of being part of a continuum. And Hinduism, my friends say, accommodates all of this and more. It is amorphous. It exists in those who have never heard of Dwaita or Advaita philosophy, in those who think Ramayana and Mahabharata are TV serials or material for endless reinterpretations. Or in those for whom temples are contexts for conversations on architecture and theology. And Hinduism happily accommodates the man who tore open the belly of a pregnant woman in Gujrat and said so proudly on camera. It lives in the real estate agent who whispered, “Don’t worry madam, we won’t allow Muslims to by a house here.” It nurtures in its wide fold the woman two buildings away who won’t let the other woman working in her house into the kitchen. So, it boils down to this. We are also Hindus. They are also Hindus. There’s something problematic here. I think, the nuance can never be conveyed. In fact, I’d go as far as saying that the nuance has been lost. For the Mahant has claimed ownership over Ram. He is talks to and speaks for all Hindus. When newspaper reports say “the disputed site should be split between Hindus and Muslims”, there is no nuance there. When the BBC and other news sites say that India is a majority Hindu nation, there’s no nuance there. There is no difference between me and Narendra Modi. We all belong to the same fold. There are some voices that express anger over this compromise in favour of the majority. They are shooed away saying, hush, finally there’s a hope for peace, let it be. If the future is peace, so be it. Am happy. If this is going to provide ammunition to Krishna Janmabhoomi or Vishwanath temple, shudder. The majority the Mahant claims supports him isn’t amorphous. It is a matter of simple addition. And somewhere in that long list of plus-one is my friend who loves Hindu stories. This majority narrative has captured many who don’t hold a Sangh card. There has to be an alternative narrative so that tomorrow, the claims of “majority” proves false. There are many ways to go about it. Declaring no-caste, no-religion in the census for starters. Perhaps changing surnames, for it is a loud proclamation of caste and religion. Or perhaps, letting go of the term Hindu. For it is amorphous. It exists as my-ism and your-ism, for we have happily reinterpreted it the way we want to. It isn’t tied to that particular name. If it is a way of life, I don’t see why I need a label for it. --
