Establishing one’s own monolithic claim overall history makes it easier to take the initiative to erase the country’s multifaceted past.
Uttar Pradesh BJP leader Rajneesh Singh feels that his “real history” is hidden in 22 closed rooms in the Taj Mahal. How’s that? According to him, the idols of Hindu deities will come out as soon as those closed houses are opened, and it will be understood that “Tejo Mahalaya” (not Taj Mahal) was actually a Shiva temple.
While the Allahabad High Court has so far dismissed the claim, it cannot be dismissed as merely ridiculous, ignoring the hint of a terrible danger.
History tells us that since 1989, various Hindutva organisations have been trying to establish this view. Now the rhetoric is getting louder, and with it comes the demand for declaring the Qutub Minar a Vishnu Pillar, sometimes with the worship of the Martand Sun Temple, an archaeological monument in Kashmir.
“Ayodhya is the just beginning, Kashi-Mathura is left”—the validity of this slogan is now being established in the country. Understandably, all the forces that for so long were considered marginalised in society are gradually being integrated into one formula. The danger is here.
There is a clear politics behind this—the politics of the majority. That said, it would be easier to take the initiative to erase the country’s rich past if it could establish its own monolithic claim to all history. And if the blessings of the ruling party are on the head, then the task of uniting and strengthening this narrative can be done in a relatively unhindered way.
That is exactly what is happening in India now. Former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti’s remarks have deepened the fears. Her message to the people: “If anyone wants to take the mosque, let them, but it should not be a cause of conflict”.
In other words, if the majority walks on the path of strength, then there is no need to use the force of resistance; it is enough to be able to survive. It is better to look at the sentiments expressed in Mufti’s words without looking at them literally.
India’s majority politics has marginalised the minority from its rights so little that it has to consider relinquishing its own and normal territories in self-defence—a situation that is a disgrace to democracy.
Here we have to express concern over the role of the state. One of the important experiences of the time of Prime Minister Narendra Modi was to turn Hindutva activities into a state project.
When there is a tug-of-war over the claim to a historic monument, or when someone wants to gain a foothold in it, it is not difficult to understand the deep silence of the Prime Minister or his government.
Nagpur’s idea of a monolithic India is the same—there will be only the majority, and the rest will be non-existent. From language, culture, food and clothing to religion—the impression of that “unification”.
This is not the norm of civilised democracy. This was not the idea of India. We must now take on the responsibility of protecting that pluralistic India.