One of the biggest myths that have been deliberately and forcefully nurtured by Hindu leaders is that Hindu society is very tolerant and assimilative. It accepts and admits even its adversaries and unlike Islam and Christianity doesn’t react violently. Such Hindu leaders are more critical of Islam in the Indian context and always blame it for not accepting other cultures and traditions and accuse it of always trying to protect its identity and being willing to pay any price for that. The recent controversy around the Hijab has been put forth as an argument to buttress their thoughts. It is also said that India has accepted even foreign invaders like Saka, Hun, Kushan, Greeks, and Mongols without much conflict.
Over a period these identities disappeared and became one with the Hindu identity but what is forgotten is that these identities were much smaller in number and so it was easy as time passed to submerge into the larger pan-Hindu identity; conflicts arose when a particular identity refused to erase its memory and stubbornly protected itself. Islam and Christianity are two such identities. Instead of accepting them as they are, and despite living side by side for centuries, pan-Hindu identity developed strong prejudices towards them and vice versa too. These prejudices became more pronounced with Islam as Muslims were larger in number and their visibility was starker than earlier identities. Over a period of time, the mutual prejudices became the real reason for the social conflicts and riots in the 20th century.
Even the biggest apostle of Hindu-Muslim unity, the father of the nation, Mahatma Gandhi has hinted about this in his famous book written in 1909, Hind Swaraj, that ‘Miya and Mahadev can’t live together’. It was for this reason that Gandhi extended support to the Khilafat Movement in 1919 which was later dubbed by Hindutvavadi leaders as Muslim appeasement. Gandhi knew in his heart that the British had successfully widened and deepened the wedge between the two religious identities so that they wouldn’t challenge British rule if they stood united.
Hindu society though at the level of ideas was/is very liberal but in its daily conduct, it remained rigid and stubborn, as the famous Hindi poet Ramdhari Singh Dinkar once said. In its civilisational journey, Hindu society never had a problem with many philosophical discourses, many at times contradictory. If it has accepted Brahma as the ultimate reality, Ram, and Krishna as divine deities, then it has also accepted Charvak who does not believe in the existence of God and it boldly says that there is no absolute truth other than the world. It’s a matter of fact that a devout Hindu despite antagonism with Islam has no problem visiting Muslim religious places and seeking blessings from Sufi saints. But in their daily lives, they will not accept the co-religionist; they will remain the ‘other’.
The original godfather of Hindutva ideology, V D Savarkar, has viciously attacked this conduct of Hindus and believed that it was because of this reason that the Hindu religion did not grow like Islam grew as a global faith and spread across continents and built many empires. Savarkar was very scathing while talking about the caste structure, the most integral part of the Hindu religion. Though, at one end of the spectrum, he believes if Hindu civilisation could survive so many foreign onslaughts it is because of the rigidity and robustness of the caste system. He writes, “Thousands of years have rolled by; the Hindu nation has faced innumerable calamities and catastrophe, yet the hold of the caste system and the influence that it has wielded upon billions of Hindus throughout these tens of centuries could never have been possible if the roots of this birth-dominated caste system had not gone deeper into the very foundation of this colossal edifice of the Hindu society.”
He writes that the Hindu society when faced with Muslim aggression, turned inward, and cocooned itself. Instead of using force to confront Muslim onslaughts, it pursued the policy of ‘ostracism’ which in the long run ‘boomeranged’. Savarkar writes, “It would be equally ungrateful on our part if we desist from criticising with sufficient severity the unlimited harm done by this caste system and the irrational and obstinate pride that the Hindus took in it when Muslims began to knock at their doors.” He elaborates, “These very caste laws and the strict adherence to them brought about a series of disasters on the Hindu religion and the Hindu nation, making the conversion of the millions of Hindus far too easier for the Muslims than can be imagined, while it cannot be denied that they made the conversion of the Muslims to Hinduism absolutely impossible.”
Savarkar underlines the fact that due to the rigid caste structure a section of the society, that was lower in the caste hierarchy was ostracized, and found solace in Islam. In the eyes of Savarkar, they were the victims of the system and many of them who later wanted to rejoin the Hindu religion were not allowed as the theory of purity kicked in. Muslims were treated as impure and anyone who came in contact with them were also treated untouchable or मलेक्क्ष्य. Savarkar writes that even those who were not willing to convert to Islam were punished just because they accidentally, or by other means, came in touch with Muslims. He writes, “it was quite possible to desecrate a whole village of caste Hindus by merely thrusting a morsel of grub into their mouths or by throwing crumbs of half-eaten loaves of bread, or biscuits or slices of beef or the meat or the meat of cows into the well and tanks where people went to have drinking water; and that no one of them had any place in the Hindu community any longer.”
So, Muslims were never worried that converted Hindus would go back to their original religion. If Hindus were assimilative then it would have not only re-admitted those Hindus who had gone to Islam and wanted to come back but who knows how many Muslims who had come from outside too, would have converted to Hinduism. ‘Ghar Wapsi’ and ‘Shuddhi’ movement were launched much later when the British rule was well entrenched, and they had very little attraction as the original curse for leaving the Hindu fold continued and those who re-converted were never allowed to attain the place of prominence in the caste hierarchy. They remained on the margin. It is this mindset that is reflective of the hatred and bitterness we witness around us these days; the sanction of the state has made it more pronounced and socially acceptable. So I am not surprised that the BJP MLA from Bihar calls for the burning of Muslims and some ‘so called’ Sadhu calls for genocide against Muslims. Years of prejudice are showing their colours today.
(The writer is Editor, SatyaHindi.com and author of Hindu Rashtra. He tweets at @ashutosh83B)
