In my neighborhood park, old ladies sit in a circle and chant. One of them does not know a word. For years, she would just move her lips, and compensate by clapping or nodding with more enthusiasm than actual singers. Now he has stopped showing off. She sits with them, at peace with herself. She reminds me of the average modern Hindu who has to deal with Hindu issues.
When the Ram Janmabhoomi movement reached its peak in the early 1990s, they felt a passion for collective anger, even if they did not know any Ram Bhajans or Hanuman Chalisa. He participated in the movement with devotion but with sincere zeal. Since then, every time another Hindu wound has come to the fore, his anger has been sought. He played with dwindling interest. But now I don’t think old Hindu wounds offend him.
Like the recent discovery of an object in Varanasi’s Gyanvapi Mosque, some Hindus claim it is a Shivling, and some claim it is over a water fountain. This is a classic issue for the Hindu right, but it appears to have little mainstream sentiment. From what I gather, even among ordinary Hindus, who despise the fact that Mughals built mosques over temples, there is no particular fury on the issue. Over the past three decades, the average Hindu has evolved from being genuinely angry to someone who must pretend support or mouth or anger in order to maintain India’s own cultural reform, and then into a self-confident person who Unable to play anymore.
That some Muslim students wear hijabs, that the sacred cow may be food, and that a statue of Shiva may have been found in a mosque are not minor issues from a political journalism standpoint, but they don’t really whip that much. Some beneficiaries of this feeling may hope to repent now.
Just as poets are the main consumers of poetry, the people who are today agitated by these Hindu issues are mostly the creators of such issues. They are a minority of specific personality types: those who harbor hatred of Muslims, and whose mental state makes them susceptible to cultural anger of any kind, including those who call themselves “liberals” and Over-react to any Hindu complaint, and politicians who hope to profit from hatred.
If you don’t trust your own instincts of society, you might want to consider a solid piece of evidence that points to how much of a Gyanwapai issue is lacking in emotion. The genesis of modern Hindu nationalism, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its political formation, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), have not played down the Shivling issue. They haven’t overlooked it, but they haven’t made it too big. We can argue that the BJP is calm in this matter as there is no major election going on and the party wants to improve its global image.
Yet, its slow response reflects its reading that Hindu society is tired of such issues and diminishing returns from obsessing over such matters.
The position of the RSS is even more important. On Thursday, its chief Mohan Bhagwat showed mild contempt for Hindus, who want to investigate every major mosque for a Hindu past. In a speech, he said that no memory of the destruction of temples is without pain, “but why seek an issue every day; why go up Why look for Shivling in every mosque… What happens in the mosque is also a prayer…we are Muslims too…Our faith matters a lot to us, but everyone’s faith matters a lot to him. ..we accept it, we (as a nation) are that.”
In recent times, even though he rarely misses the chance to say that Islam came through foreign conquerors, he has used the same fact to identify Indian Muslims as having equal stock with Indian Hindus. Also, Bhagwat has often suggested that modern Hindus need to think in new ways. In his speech, he said that there is a need for revolution in the temple of Ayodhya; Since this is over and has happened now, Hindus no longer need to be in “movement” (mobilization) mode. “We are not a nation by reason of one language, or one form of worship, or by geographical location.” He noted diversity, which means that we are a nation because we are many of the things that make up India, including the moral considerations for which every religion must exist. He also referred to Sanatana Dharma, as humanism, as the truth that would make India a teacher to the world, and that it would have to be put into practice: “Truth has no legs of its own, it requires strength. ” It seemed to him that the RSS was an ideal force that could transmit the truth of Hinduism. The RSS chief said that Hindus should not be afraid of anything, but they should not intimidate anyone.
All this also explains why not only the RSS, but even the average Hindu of sound mind is not so impressed with Gyanvapi and other such issues. A cultural battle has been won. There is no longer any reason for an average Hindu to feel unsafe in India. He now has the luxury of becoming a better Hindu and aspiring to world influence.
Nehruvians and other Indians who eat Shatavari do not trust the RSS. They ridicule every attempt by Bhagwat to reassure common Muslims. They constantly remind us of the history of the RSS and talk of Nazi inspiration. It is amusing because Nehruvians like to laugh at those who still blame all the failures of India on Nehru. But they act in a way that is steeped in history.
Historians must have trained us to overestimate history. But we are not always the creation of the place we came from. We can be better than our history.
Manu Joseph is a journalist, novelist and producer of the Netflix series ‘Decauld’.