Manipur and Hindutva

The BJP perhaps recognises the ideology-identity problems bound up in the Manipur situation, and hence the PM’s silence on the issue.

It is a well-known truism that communal riots occur in India more by design than by default. It’s when the police fail to perform one of their archaic functions called the ‘maintenance of law and order’ and hand over public space to the vigilante groups of the ruling parties. The mayhem that follows, the killings, the rapes and the burning of ‘enemy’ houses and shops is generally viewed as an ‘unfortunate’, even ‘condemnable’ pathological outburst of some ‘anti-social elements.’ The perpetrators of these ‘heinous crimes’ invariably escape the long arm of the law and the victims are allowed to start a fresh life -- in refugee camps that gradually morph into new colonies on the outskirts of the city.

The recent problems in Manipur have been blamed by many on a High Court order directing the state government to decide on the inclusion of the Meitei community in the Scheduled Tribes (ST) list. The order of 27 March, when made public on 19 April, is said to have led to widespread protests across the state by Kuki-Zomi tribes as well as Naga tribes, who feared that if the dominant Meitei community were included in the ST list, it would significantly affect the rights of the existing Scheduled Tribes in the state. Anyone cursorily aware of the state of Manipur knows the enormous power and privileges enjoyed by the Meitei community. They are the ruling class.

Also Read: Nuh: Markings of a made-to-order riot

The Kuki-Zomi and Naga protests were brutally countered by the Metiei community, which constitutes more than half the state population. Murderous attacks began on both sides of the divide between the valley and the hill peoples.

Some 260 churches are reported to have been burnt down, most of them in the Meitei-dominated heartland. Chief Minister N Biren Singh’s supporters claim that his orders to burn down poppy fields and eliminate the drug trade was what incurred the wrath of the Kuki-Zomis. But that does not explain why churches were burnt down.

It has been an age-old grouse of the BJP and Sangh Parivar that India had lost the entire North-East to the Christian missionaries, thanks to large-scale conversions since the colonial times, and that the situation needs to be retrieved by bringing the region’s tribes back into the Hindu fold.

Those that are brought up on a daily dose of V D Savarkar’s teachings believe that that’s essential to serve the Hindutva cause. For Savarkar propounded that India belonged to ‘the Hindu who regards this land from the Indus to the seas as his Fatherland as well as his Holy Land’. Muslims and Christians may have been born here, but what they each regard as their Holy Land -- Mecca and Bethlehem – is outside India. Hence, they cannot claim to be equal citizens of India.

Savarkar then went on to criticise Buddhism for having instilled in the Hindu mind its ‘mealy-mouthed’ formula of Ahimsa which was so ‘disastrous to the national virility and even the national existence of our race.’ This hatred of Ahimsa became a guiding principle of the Hindu Mahasabha. The RSS’ M S Golwalkar also took inspiration from Savarkar’s ideas of nationhood and citizenship. So did Nathuram Godse.

These two thoughts – that only Hindus can claim full citizenship rights in India while Muslims and Christians cannot, and that Ahimsa is effete and Himsa (violence) is a legitimate tool in dealing with the problem of identities and citizenship rights -- constitute the pathological underpinning of political Hindutva.

Contradictions abound and surface as one proceeds with this line of thinking and can be particularly troublesome for the BJP. Are the Meitei Hindus and can they lay claim to full citizenship if one were to go by Hindutva logic? The Meitei were followers of, and still identify with, ‘Sanamahism’, an animistic religion that centres around nature worship and provides the link to their past status as a tribe. Most, however, have converted to Hinduism only recently -- since the early 18th century, starting with the reign of King Gopal Singh, who introduced Hinduism as the state religion. Being currently the Hindu ruling class therefore, if the Meitei now want to lay claim to their tribal status, can they be both caste Hindus and ‘Scheduled Tribe’ at the same time?

Most pertinently for the BJP, if the Meitei were to be categorised as ‘tribals’, then would they become redundant for the Hindutva cause? After all, in the context of his views on caste, Savarkar approvingly quoted an unnamed ‘authority’ on the definition of ‘Aryavarta’ – the land of the Aryans – in negative terms thus: “the Land where the system of four Varnas does not exist should be known as Mleccha country; Aryavarta lies away from it.” If the Meitei are tribals and not in the “system of the four Varnas”, does the arc of land where they exist still constitute part of ‘Aryavarta’ and, more importantly, can they claim full citizenship as the caste Hindu can as per the Savarkarite idea of India?

The BJP leadership perhaps recognises the depths of the ideology-identity problems that are bound up in the North-East. Is that the reason behind the Prime Minister’s silence on the issue?

The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in the pathology of our minds in not treating all the people of this country as equal citizens but as Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Dalits, Tribals!

But let’s hope that wisdom dawns that the North-East should be spared the toxicity of our internal politics because the region is bound by three difficult neighbours -- China, Myanmar and Bangladesh. All of them have sheltered and supported our insurgents in the past.

(The writer is a former Cabinet Secretariat official)