Branding non-Hindus as non-Indians is the cornerstone of India’s
hindu-isation. For the quintessential Sangh proponent, “haramzaada-ization” of
the other is an article of faith.
Some, like M S Golwalkar, Subramanian Swamy and the PM’s sadhvi-sant
footsoldiers, are repulsively honest about it. BJP chief Amit Shah, his master
and other more evolved saffron merry men, who have a lot to lose by publicly embracing
the diabolical intent, prefer the dogwhistle.
Yet another set has for years desperately tried to
intellectualise the project. Their written and verbal arguments are the Trojan Horse
that let the most virulent of agendas seep into public mindspace without evoking conscious
resistance.
Consider the affable Swapan Dasgputa’s column this week in The
Sunday Times of India. In “How do losers remember the past? A lesson from
Germany”, Dasgupta apparently tries to draw parallels between a defeated
post-World War-I Germany and India.
Somewhere midway in the piece, after rambling self-servingly
about his “high-table” outings, the Hindutva ideologue slips this in: “For too long – indeed, till
the victory in the 1971 war – Indians have invariably been on the losing side
in conflicts. There has been the odd occasion when a Maharana Pratap, a
Lachchit Borpukan and a Shivaji momentarily turned the tables against superior
foes.”
This is the crux around which he weaves a verbal miasma. In
one broad stroke, Dasgupta brands as "non-Indians" Akbar and Aurangzeb -- two Muslim emperors of
vastly different worldviews, notwithstanding the fact that
they were as Indian as the Taj Mahal and the Red Fort.
(Somebody ask Dasgupta if the Hindu Ramsingh who fought Borpukan on behalf of Aurangzeb was "Indian" or "non-Indian")
Using Dasgupta’s yardstick, one could brand the Jain-Hindu
Kalinga kings “Indian” and Hindu-Buddhist Emperor Ashok “non-Indian”.
Similarly, Rudradaman-I -- a century 2nd century Saka/Scythian king tracing his roots to
central Asia – would be a “foreigner”. The Telugu-speaking Hindu Satavahanas,
whom Rudradaman defeated, were Indian. Were the south Indian Jain-Hindu Pallavas (Parthian-Persian-Parsi-Pahlavi)
“non-Indian” and their arch rivals, the Kannada-speaking Jain-Hindu Chalukyas, “Indian”?
It could go on till, ridiculously, even a certain Sakyamuni
(Scythian sage) Siddhartha Gautama is deemed “non-Indian” – both in terms of
ethnicity as well as religion – by the esteemed journalist.
However, going by Dasgupta’s well-known inclinations, he
is obviously referring to only Muslim “non-Indians”. So his call is to the psychologically
“defeated” Hindus to get over the “loserly” attitude and get back to “winning
ways” – all wrapped in benign insipidity.
Bite that, O Hindu-Indian!
