________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Over the last few months, two events have torn into the secular fabric and traditional
rectitude of
In March, Hindu militants in the state of
For three weeks, the subcontinent teetered on the brink. As refugees fleeing
murderous mobs sat garrisoned in makeshift camps across
But over a million troops still remain mobilized along
Though the India-Pakistan nuclear standoff was ostensibly driven by the
continuing terrorism that
Recent history has shown that both
It is hard to ignore that Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's calls for a "decisive war"
against
Witnesses and investigators said that during the worst days of the strife,
marauding mobs of intoxicated young men were systematically trucked into
Gujarati towns with written instructions for violence, including computerized
lists of Muslim businesses and homes. In their saffron bandanas, brandishing
"trishuls"-the
mythical weapon of the Hindu God Shiva-the mobs systematically devastated these
places.
Their brutality was mind numbing. According to reports by independent
organizations like the People's
Within hours, a state renowned for its ancient citadels and verdant tribal
hamlets lay blood-drenched, pillaged and scorched. Many ordinary citizens
joined in the rioting and looting that followed. Eyewitnesses say that local
administrators, legislators, district magistrates and policemen aided and
abetted them.
Gujarat's BJP-led government, headed by Chief Minister Narendra
Modi, did little to stop the slaughter. Harsh Mander,
a senior civil servant who has since resigned, said that "if even one
official had acted, she or he could have deployed the police forces and called
in the army to halt the violence and protect the people in a matter of
hours."
Instead, he said, the state witnessed "a systematic, planned
massacre."
"I believe that what happened in Gujarat was a premeditated,
state-abetted, antiminority pogrom," said Sugata Bose, a professor of Indian history at Harvard
University, who recently visited the country. "This
needs to be condemned unequivocally and those culpable must be brought
to book."
Leaders of the Sangh Parivar have all but admitted their involvement in the
riots. "It had to be done," said K.K. Shastri,
chairman of the Gujarat state unit of the Vishwa
Hindu Parishad, one of the chief constituents of the
Sangh Parivar. Talking with reporters, Shastri
acknowledged "our people" had unleashed the violence and said the
rioters were "well-bred Hindu boys."
Ashutosh Varshney, an
associate professor of political science at the University of Michigan, had
predicted Hindu-Muslim violence in the state and even identified the towns that
would see the most bloodshed. Varshney said such
identification was possible because "large-scale ethnic violence in India
does not erupt spontaneously from the street but from active political action
by groups to polarize communities, and from calculated violence carried out by
criminal gangs associated with them."
To most, the image of Hinduism as a benign and syncretic culture is hard to
shake. The sight of a bearded and turbaned Islamic cleric can bring an entire
airport to a full security alert, but a saffron-robed, bald-headed yogi
inspires a grin at best. Yet, cheerful and comforting as this image of Hinduism
and India is, it is also turning false.
In a nation that was torn apart by religious divisions just as it attained
independence, time has not anaesthetized the trauma of the partition that
created Pakistan and India out of British India in 1947.
Jawaharlal Nehru's Congress party, which ruled India almost uninterrupted from
1947 to 1996, struggled to build a secular India from what Mahatma Gandhi
called the "wooden loaf" of Indian independence-an independence
despoiled by ethnic hatred. Force-feeding the nation the dream of a secular
India through a torrent of clumsy, Soviet-style propaganda, India was raised on
a superficial diet of feel-good slogans while ethnic tensions raged at its
core. Unattended, the problem festered.
And it was compounded by corrosive corruption that systematically destroyed
what Arundhati Roy called "ordinary
citizens'" modest hopes for lives of dignity, security and relief from
abject poverty.
Beginning in the early 1990s, the BJP, eager to grab the political stage from a
Congress Party made rudderless after the assassination of Rajiv
Gandhi, began rallying latent frustrations by asserting that only an India
ruled by Hindu principles, or Hindutva, could return the country to its ancient
"greatness." Arguing that India's minorities are anti-national,
pampered and aggressive, the Sangh Parivar violently advocated the
transformation of secular India into a Hindu state, with minimal minority
rights.
With 81 percent of Indians describing themselves as Hindu, the Hindutva
campaign energized many Indians yearning for quick-fix solutions to age-old
problems into believing the BJP offered a remedy for ancient grudges and modern
failures.
The BJP's calculated, strategic use of ethnic
politics that fed off the ghosts from the past aroused suppressed rivalries and
created a groundswell of support for the Hindu fundamentalist movement that
always patrolled the periphery of India's social and political life. Their
razing of the 16th century Babri Masjid
mosque precipitated their popularity in the 1990s. Amidst the sectarian
tensions that followed, the Sangh Parivar unleashed waves of organized violence
against Muslim neighborhoods. Later, in a movement against Christian
proselytizing, they began to target Christians, killing priests and burning
churches across the nation.
First riding to power on the Hindutva campaign in 1998, the BJP won mid-term
elections in 2000 to lead a coalition government in New Delhi. Under pressure
from secular allies the party appeared for a time to be attempting non-partisan
governance. But the party suffered serious reversals Feb. 25, when it lost all
of four state-level elections. Analysts suspect that hard-liners in the BJP and
Sangh Parivar then felt the need to reassert their Hindutva credentials.
Three days later, the violence erupted in Gujarat.
Gujarat showcased what the Sangh Parivar's new India could look like. As the
state bled, K.C. Sudarshan, head of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, or
RSS, the fountainhead of Hindu fundamentalism, warned Christians and Muslims
that their continued safety in India depended not on the rule of law or their
constitutional rights, but on "the goodwill of the Hindu majority."
When paramilitary troops were finally called in to quell the violence and they
patrolled curfew-bound towns with orders to shoot at sight, the BJP tried to
consolidate its Hindu base through incendiary political moves.
In a move that cast grave doubt over the future security of Muslims in the
state "the few (police officers) who ignored political interference and
tried to prevent the escalation of violence were punished with sudden
transfers," said journalist Dionne Bunsha who
covered the riots. Then, Modi's government sought to
compensate Hindu victims from the earlier train attack in Godhra
with twice the money offered to Muslim victims from the riots.
At the federal level, the BJP government refused any independent, credible
investigation into the violence. Prime Minister Vajpayee's most severe action
against Modi has been to subject him to an avuncular chiding. His most visible
gesture to victims of the violence has been to release a poem sharing his
personal anguish and to grant them some financial compensation.
Outrage at the Sangh Parivar's tactics, both in the street and within India's
secular political parties, polarized India. In the ethnically charged
atmosphere that followed many Hindus gravitated further toward the BJP. But the
party lost credibility with secular voters and found itself under intense pressure
in parliament when two key partners threatened to withdraw from its coalition.
With the prospect of yet another mid-term election looming party strategists
realized that the BJP had to consolidate its right wing Hindu base and win over
moderate voters if it was to have any chance of staying in power.
It was within this context that Pakistan-supported Kashmiri separatists
attacked India's Kalachuk military base on May 14
killing 34 people.
Though the attack typified the 14-year old terrorist conflict in the
long-running Kashmiri conflict-in which more than 50,000 people have been
killed in almost daily violence-Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee chose that moment to call for a massive
military retaliation against Pakistan.
A link has long been seen between the BJP's domestic
anti-Muslim actions and its aggression toward Islamic Pakistan. By stoking
domestic ethnic tensions and then casting India's complex political disputes
with Pakistan over Kashmir in a religious mold the BJP was won considerable
domestic support for a hard line against its nuclear neighbor. And it is using
this jingoism to further whip up ethnic tensions at home, thereby establishing
a cycle of anti-Islamic sentiment and nationalism from which it draws its
power.
Vajpayee's sudden escalation of tensions with Pakistan compelled opposition
parties and public opinion to unite behind his government. Conveniently, the
threat of nuclear war with Pakistan relegated emerging evidence of the BJP's role in the Gujarat riots to the inner pages of all
newspapers even as it won the party renewed popular support.
Incensed by what the Pakistani army calls its "war of a thousand
cuts" being waged against it in Kashmir, India has been demanding a harder
line against its bete noire. And the BJP has been
happy to oblige.
"Trouble," Vajpayee now told India, "brews wherever Muslims live
in large numbers."
The Bush administration, whose efforts to fashion a strategic relationship with
India took on renewed vigor after the World Trade Center attack, initially
seemed loath to acknowledge the severity of the Hindu militancy unfolding in
India.
But shocked by what it called "horrible violence in Gujarat" and the
soon-to-follow threat of nuclear war, Washington, with help from Russia and the
European Union, has begun to work carefully towards defusing religion-based
antagonisms in the region.
Although analysts agree on the need for the international community to pull
India and Pakistan back from their nuclear brinkmanship, some caution that
overt Western attempts to pressure the BJP to roll back its Hindutva movement
will be trickier and could easily backfire.
Though most of the Sangh Parivar's nationalistic ire is currently directed
toward Islam, it harbors deep suspicions of the West and China too. The Sangh
Parivar believes that Hindus have suffered oppression for a thousand years,
first under the Islamic dynasties that ruled India for some 800 years, and
later under the British colonialists who displaced them in 1757. Convinced that
Hindu disunity was the reason India was repeatedly conquered by foreign powers,
the Sangh Parivar sees Islam, Christianity and Communism as foreign movements
that could divide Hindus again.
Senior Sangh Parivar leaders like Defense Minister George Fernandes
have repeatedly referred to China as India's foremost enemy. In a private
letter to President Clinton in 1998, Prime Minister Vajpayee explained India's
decision to go nuclear by pointing to China. "We have an overt nuclear
weapon state on our borders, a state which committed armed aggression against
India in 1962 (and) has materially helped another neighbour
of ours to become a covert nuclear weapons state," Vajpayee wrote.
For now, in the midst of the war against what it sees as Islamic terrorism, the
BJP views the US and the West as an ally. But Professor Bose of Harvard
cautions "that the xenophobic strain in Hindu majoritarian
nationalism could alter equations in the future."
The BJP's reading of history has driven it to expand
India's military prowess, which it increasingly sees as central its romantic
nationalism, says Professor Arun Swamy,
a fellow at the East West Center in Honolulu.
Since coming to power, the BJP has not only taken India nuclear, it has also
developed the country's long-range missile program, increased defense spending
by 30 percent (so it now totals 25 percent of government expenditure), signed
multi-billion dollar arms deals with Russia and initiated covert military ties
with Taiwan and Israel.
With the Sangh Parivar's nationalist religious ideology penetrating India's
government apparatus and shaping its policy some analysts worry that there are
indications of a 1930's-type European fascism unfolding in the country.
"The recent rounds of violence between religious groups in India do more
than reveal the fragility of India's secular state. They highlight the
inability of Indian democracy to combat what is essentially a fascist
onslaught," writes Swamy.
Recent changes in the government's leadership in the aftermath of the human
catastrophe in Gujarat and the perilous nuclear confrontation with Pakistan
indicate that the Sangh Parivar seems intent on continuing Hindu nationalism's
upward trajectory.
In a cabinet reshuffle on July 1, Vajpayee named L.K. Advani,
the uber-nationalist mastermind of the Babri mosque movement, as deputy prime minister. Advani, who was responsible for domestic law and order when
the riots exploded, did nothing to curtail the violence even though he is
elected to parliament from a Gujarati constituency.
Last month the BJP and its allies installed Dr. A.J. Kalam,
a Muslim and India's leading defense scientist, as India's President. Though
almost entirely ceremonial, the position is seen to represent the nation as
Head of State.
"The BJP has been clever about using Muslims in highly visible but
ceremonial positions," said Radhika Desai, associate professor of
Political Science at the University of Victoria. "Co-opting Muslims and
having them function as subordinates works well with the BJP's
strategy which seeks to undermine Muslim independence."
Though Muslim by birth, Kalam's personal religious
beliefs remain nebulous and he has done little to speak for Muslim and minority
rights. Instead, he has been a long-time supporter of India's military
expansion and his quiet, avuncular nationalism has made him a hero with many
Indians.
In a recent speech Kalam, whom the press has
described as a "nationalist self-help guru," told India what his
vision for the nation was.
"India must stand up to the world," said Kalam,
whom everyone calls "Dr." despite the fact that he does not have a
Ph.D. "Because I believe that unless India stands up to the world, no one
will respect us. Only strength respects strength."
Kalam, who
described his role in India's 1998 nuclear tests as a personal
"bliss" exhorted Indians to think of themselves as a developed
nation. Chiding the press for their coverage of political violence in
India, he suggested that they write about India's advances in defense
technology instead. Kalam also urged Indians to
acquire "self-respect" through "self-reliance" and urged
them to turn away from "foreign things."
In a nation yearning for self-respect and recognition as it struggles to catch
up with the developed world, Kalam's speech enthused
many even as some worried that it heightened chauvinism across the nation.
With people like Kalam, and a rising number of
retired army generals joining the BJP, India's previously apolitical military
establishment is becoming increasingly nationalistic. Their support is giving
the BJP added credibility. Many of these officers openly call for war, even
nuclear war, with Pakistan. While talk of war usually arouses conservatism
amongst fighting men, India's armed forces have been so long thwarted by
Pakistan's "war of a thousand cuts" against them that their hatred
appears to be overcoming their good counsel. If international analysts puzzle
at the popular support for their warmongering, it might help to remember that
few Indians really know what the costs of war can be. The longest of India's
wars lasted three weeks and all of them were mostly confined to the border
areas. Even during the Second World War, India was one of the few nations to
have escaped any direct assault by the Germans or Japanese, though Indian
soldiers and resources contributed to the allied effort.
Outside government, the Sangh Parivar is indoctrinating millions of Indians
into its ideology through a cadre-based grassroots organization with more than
80,000 local offices, or shakhas. Their saffron flags
flutter from lampposts even as Muslims and other minorities struggle to ply
their trade in the tumultuous streets below. At the shakhas,
zealots in uniforms of white shirts and khaki pants reminiscent of Mussolini's brownshirts learn varied "self-defense" skills
and talk earnestly of how India must be "cleansed" of Muslims who
should be "deported" to Pakistan. Most significantly, through its
madrassa-like religious schools, called shishu mandirs, the Sangh Parivar is spreading religious hatred
and falsified history amongst thousands of India's poorest children. Realizing
the importance of the young in a nation where 36 percent of the population is
below 15, the BJP is also trying to "reshape the secondary-school
curriculum by stealth in ways that fit with Hindu nationalist ideology,"
writes Swamy.
The serious global implications of Hindu fundamentalism lead Professor Varshney to suggest that subtle international actions could
"nudge" the BJP towards a more moderate position. "Careful,
private diplomacy from the Bush Administration could communicate to the BJP
that its Hindutva movement is damaging America's perception of India and is
close to crossing the threshold of international acceptability," Varshney said.
But Professor Bose disagrees. "This is a matter for the Indian political
process to resolve," said Bose, who believes that India's political
institutions-an independent judiciary, a free press and an energetic civil
society-are strong enough to defeat any emerging majoritarian
tendencies.
As politicians, diplomats and human rights activists weigh their next move, the question they struggle with is whether the
religious militancy consuming India is transitory or a reflection of the
country's true nature.
A temporary waning of nuclear fears and a lull in ethnic violence
notwithstanding, Arundhati Roy warns that India is
"sipping from a poisoned chalice-a flawed democracy faced with religious
fascism."
Despite the secular vision of Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first post-independence
leader, most Indians continue to define their primary identity in terms of
religion, caste and ethnicity. Manipulation of this historical flaw, and
disillusionment with the present, are allowing the Sangh Parivar to rouse a
xenophobic pride amongst Indians.
"People who have lost control over their lives, people who have been
uprooted from their homes and communities, who have lost their culture and
their language, are being made to feel proud of something," wrote Roy.
"Not something they have striven for and achieved, not something they can
count as a personal accomplishment, but something they just happen to be. Or,
more accurately, something they happen not to be. And the falseness, the
emptiness of that pride, is fueling a gladiatorial anger that is then directed
toward a simulated target that has been wheeled into the amphitheater."
Yesterday the simulated targets were India's Muslims and Pakistan. Tomorrow it
could be any race, any country. For now in India, as Roy has said,
"there's fire in the ducts."