Public life entails a degree of responsibility
Enough has already been said and written about Nupur Sharma — the derogatory remarks she made against Prophet Muhammad; the resultant embarrassment of the Indian government as the otherwise non-democratic Arab world expressed its unhappiness over the growing Islamophobia in India, and demanded an apology from the government; and eventually, the BJP’s decision to suspend this ‘fringe’ element from the party, or its rather shallow effort to distance itself from this heavily pampered spokesperson by proclaiming that it is a party that is in tune with the spirit of multi-culturalism. In fact, only someone naïve would believe that the ruling regime is really serious about it. It is quite likely that the game would go on as usual, and the master strategists of the ruling regime — the managers of the election winning machinery — will exploit this event, popularise the belief that with the assertion of the Islamic world, Hindus are becoming ‘victims’; and the only remedy is the consolidation of ‘Hindu unity’ for the making of the ‘Hindu rashtra’.
Yes, the suspension of Nupur Sharma, or, for that matter, the expulsion of Naveen Jindal from the party means nothing. The reason is that the mindset these ‘fringe’ elements embody is the logical consequence of the exclusivist doctrine of militant nationalism. In fact, the dramatic rise of the Sangh Parivar is inseparable from Hindutva — the ideology that seeks to unite and homogenise Hindus (irrespective of caste/class/gender hierarchies, or plural and even contradictory notions of the meaning of being a ‘Hindu’) through the manipulative act of constructing and demonising the ‘enemies’ of the nation — Muslims, minorities, liberals, leftists, Gandhians and spiritual wanderers. No wonder, the psychology of hatred and violence is bound to be its essence. Even when the ideologues of Hindutva speak of deshbhakti, it does not generate a life-affirming feeling of collective welfare; instead, it is negative and toxic; it is like spreading all sorts of ugly notions about those who refuse to abide by their dictums. And the kind of religion it speaks of is devoid of the religiosity of love; instead, it is a sort of militarisation that erects walls of separation. Far from being spiritually calm, it is noisy.
Is it that some sort of Talibanisation is its ‘intimate enemy’ — the enemy it seeks to emulate? From cow vigilantism to the desperate act of finding the traces of Hindu heritage in almost every known mosque — the religion that Hindutva pleads for does not have the slightest affinity with the ideals of Kabir, Gandhi and Tagore. Hence, there is nothing to be surprised if an ideology of this kind celebrates the likes of Sakshi Maharaj and Pragya Singh Thakur, or gives us a dictionary of abuses — ‘love jihad’, ‘tukde tukde gang’, ‘andolanjivis’ and so on and so forth. Even if through his dramaturgical performances, the ‘messiah’ seeks to project himself as a ‘world leader’ walking confidently with Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin, and charming his millions of Twitter followers, the harsh reality is that we live here amid widespread psychic and cultural poisoning.
Likewise, with the rise of this sort of toxic nationalism, we have also witnessed the massive degeneration of the mode of communication that characterises most of our television channels. Yes, with the ‘prime time’ assembly of well-fed/well-clothed anchors (they are not journalists with conscience; instead, they sell lies and propaganda, or diverse packages of hatred), non-reflexive spokespersons of different political parties, and meticulously hired angry priests and mullahs, we enter an audio-visual realm that abhors civility, negates the art of listening and nuanced argumentation, reduces a discussion into some sort of boxing, and transforms every issue — be it Kashmir or JNU, Covid or inflation — into a war between ‘Hindus’ and ‘Muslims’, or ‘nationalists’ and ‘anti-national conspirators’. And as consumers of this sort of television-induced toxic culture, we keep encouraging these new ‘stars’— the likes of Nupur Sharma and Sambit Patra, or their carbon copies in other political formations and religious organisations.
In a way, a bit of Nupur Sharma exists in many of us, even if we love to see ourselves as ‘educated’. We need not forget that Sharma, as far as the formal definition goes, is fairly educated. From the University of Delhi to the London School of Economics — her CV is tempting. And some of our television anchors who are concerned about the fate of the ‘republic’ in contemporary ‘times’ too possess fancy degrees and diplomas. Yet, they are never tired of emitting toxic messages and symbols of hatred and violence. Is it that what we consume as ‘education’ is devoid of humanistic temper, the ethics of inclusive citizenship and the redemptive power of critical faculties? We must ask this question because there is no escape from the prevalent rot unless we rethink education, unlearn the politics of militant nationalism or the psychology of religious bigotry, and learn the creative art of experiencing India as an oceanic confluence of multiple traditions and faiths. Possibly, Gandhi and Tagore inspired some of our freedom fighters to celebrate the possibility of liberating education. Yes, education, for them, was more than getting a degree in mass communication or business management!
However, amid media simulations and hyper-nationalism, we seem to have forgotten all noble principles. We justify our misdeeds by arguing that Islamic fundamentalists are no less toxic and violent. No wonder, we receive what we deserve: Nathuram Godse’s followers as our leaders, and their spokespersons and close allies — toxic television anchors — as mass entertainers amid the normalisation of violence in everyday life.
Without a politico-cultural revolution, is it possible to free ourselves from this virus of hatred?
