[ad_1]
Nusrat Jahan, the first Muslim congresswoman of the Trinamool Congress, created waves on June 25 when she was sworn in front of the Lok Sabha, dressed in sindoor and a mangalsutra, two traditional signs of A married woman in Hinduism. When Muslim clerics blamed Jahan for disrespecting Islam, many defended it, citing his recent interfaith marriage as a "brilliant example of India." secular ".
Jahan was back on Thursday, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness decided to invite him as a special guest of his Rath Yatra in Kolkata. The reason for the invitation, stated the Times of India is because the Hindu religious group was "impressed by the secular position of Nusrat Jahan" when she was sworn in as as Member.
"Nusrat Jahan raises himself above faith and embraces Sabka Saath [inclusiveness] by practicing Hindu rituals," chants Vande Mataram. Nusrat Jahan places India in first place and not in faith, reads a tweet on the TV news channel Times Now during his report on Rath Yatra.
The presence at the ceremony of Mamata Banerjee, Congress Chief and Prime Minister of West Bengal, also attracted the attention of the media. An editorial commentary in the Indian Express stated that Banerjee's decision to attend the Hindu religious event alongside Jahan "would strengthen his secular image" after the Bharatiya Janata party had been accused of being guilty of "appeasing minorities". in a way that privileges minorities.
The paradox was apparent. Jahan, a Muslim woman, defended the vision of India's secularism by participating in the festival celebrated by people professing a faith in which she was not born. But when Mamata Banerjee did the same thing, attending dinners at the Iftar marking the end of the fast during the Muslim holy month of Ramzan, her detractors accused her of "appeasing minorities" ".
The photo of the senior minister, his head covered. as part of a Muslim stereotype, became viral on Bengali social media and played an important role in promoting a recital in the last general election.
The criticism even led to a sharp comment from the Chief Minister after the results: "Since I appease the Muslims, I will attend [iftar] a hundred times".
What is this contradiction In India today, a member of a minority community belonging to the culture of the majority group is praised, but a Hindu politician is criticized for his participation to events organized by Muslims or Christians.
Journey to Ayodhya
A look back at another rath yatra could help explain how this incongruous situation has occurred. In 1990, LK Advani, who at the time was president of the BJP, embarked on a two-month trip to demand the demolition of the Babri Masjid mosque in Ayodhya and the construction of a temple in place. The BJP and its supporters claimed that the mosque was where the god Ram was born.
Advani's policy had an electric effect, sparking events that would lead three decades later to make Narendra Modi one of the most powerful prime ministers that India has ever seen.
The impact of the BJP veteran was much deeper than becoming prime ministers. Advani has changed the political culture of India, its roots and its branches. He popularized a neologism that came to forcefully define Indian politics: "pseudo-secularism". According to Advani, Indian secular politicians at the time were engaged in "appeasement of minorities" and neglected the Hindu majority. This formulation had little to do with reality, given the high levels of poverty among Indian Muslims, their poor access to education and their low representation in public employment. Nevertheless, this definition of "pseudo-secularism" played a vital role in shaping the ideology of the BJP and, given the subsequent popularity of the party, of Indian politics.
Among its other consequences, this formulation of pseudo-secularism discouraged manifestations of Muslims. symbols in the political space of India. Famous, during his tenure as Chief Minister of Gujarat, Modi refused to wear a Muslim cap. "My job is to respect all communities, to respect the values of all communities, but I have to accept my own values," said Modi. "I live with my values".
This argument seems reasonable – until it is realized that Modi has often been photographed wearing headwear from places as far removed from his native Gujarat as Nagaland. The problem, it seems, concerned only things identified as Muslim
Uncontrolled Indian Laity
Indian secularism is of course very different from the Western idea of separating church and state. It is best understood as a consocialist model of power sharing, which translates into multiculturalism in the public sphere.
In a country where illiteracy is widespread, political ideas are often communicated through actions rather than words. This would include politicians wearing regional clothing or participating in public rituals to express their concern for a particular social group. In fact, this tradition of conveying political ideas in sartorial forms goes back to Mohandas Gandhi, who, although a lawyer trained in England, consciously adopted the loincloth of Indian peasants.
Hindutva understood this characteristic of Indian secularism. sought to dismantle it. The badertion that his opponents were guilty of pseudo-secularism did not constitute an attempt to separate the church and the state or banish religion from the public sphere. In fact, the spread of religion in the public sphere was essential for the Hindu nationalism of the BJP. Instead, the party's plan was to get rid of the public sphere of the public sphere other than Hinduism .
A Hindu Public Sphere
As a result, even though the BJP has shrunk from advertising badociated with symbols badociated with Islam over the past five years, Modi has been in power in Delhi. Major public celebrations of Hinduism have taken place.
But rival parties that defend religions other than Hinduism have been attacked. This is why Trinamool's support for Ramzan is cited as an example of appeasement of minorities.
This logic is visible in a number of other cases. In Haryana, Hindutva groups attacked Muslims for praying in public spaces while, of course, Hindu rituals taking place in the same spaces were without comment. There is therefore a largely successful attempt to ensure that the public sphere is exclusively Hindu and to make religious majorityism the new normality.
"Secular" religious majoritarism
In this endeavor, the strangest perhaps is the use of the word "secular" to rationalize a completely opposite situtation – religious majoritarism. In 1946, in his masterful essay entitled "Politics and the English Language," British writer George Orwell baderted that "political discourse and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible" .
One of the ways to do this was to use what Orwell had used called "meaningless words". "The word fascism no longer makes sense except to the extent that it means" something undesirable, "writes Orwell.
While Orwell was writing for 1940s England , his diagnosis is remarkably valid for India in 2019. Majority can not be celebrated or multiculturalism condemned, words such as "secularism" and "appeasement" are cast in a new light for the purpose
As a result, a minority participating in the rituals of the majority is now projected laic then Simultaneously, a powerful majority that participates in the culture of a minority is considered as an appeasement. 19659032]
[ad_2]
Source link
