Jaggi very rightly pointed out that the whole problem arose because of the boorish behaviour of Indians, something all of us are familiar with. There are many who will argue that all they were doing is stretching themselves out, switching seats, exchanging new cellphones they had bought etc. so what's the big deal?
The big deal was that they refused to listen to warnings by the flight staff. It's something all of us are familiar with. But what is normal in India is not normal in other parts of the world and certainly not in an atmosphere of heightened and perfectly justified nervousness.
Gautam pulled no punches when he called the Indian reaction to the Dutch action "infantile". Vir Sanghvi felt the action was racist but very rightly lambasted Indian double standards, reminding us about how at one time every Sikh was seen as a potential terrorist. Remember how for many years there was no Sikh in the Prime Minister's security after Indira Gandhi's assassination? He also points to how innocent Muslims are harassed in a similar fashion now.
But I don't recollect the whole of India getting into such a lather about the Sikhs as it does about Muslims. This racial profiling noise is something that the media in India and self-proclaimed liberal Indians (mostly leftists, actually) indulge in every time Muslim homes are raided and Muslim youth rounded up after a terrorist attack. It's always called a knee jerk reaction. The minute any Muslim is arrested, there are interviews with neighbours and family members saying the person is innocent, he used to mind his own business, he was such a nice person, we can't believe he is a terrorist, this is a frame up etc etc. It's almost as if the media is trying to drum up sympathy for him. For heaven's sake, if I get arrested for a crime, my family is hardly likely to say I am guilty and that they always knew I was up to no good!
It's interesting that this debate should be happening during the week after I saw Rang De Basanti on television. One aspect of the film left me feeling very disturbed and depressed and I was planning to write about it as a sequel to my previous post on Putting a Name to Terror.
In the film, when the college students are partying in a monument, the political goons who come and disrupt the party, saying `band karo ye nanga naach' and ranting about `videshi parampara' have saffron scarves around their necks and huge tilaks on their foreheads, clearly marking them out to be Hindu extremists. And obviously the party they belong to is the one in power and is responsible for the corruption in defence purchases! The activist who first disrupts the party and then becomes friends with the college gang is beaten up by his party colleagues for trying to expose the government on the MiG issue. The imagery is very clear. It is the Hindutva spewing politicians who are unreasonable and steeped in bigotry and responsible for corruption as well.
Why did it offend me, even though I have utter distaste for the Vinay Katiyars, Bal Thackerays and their like? Because it is not just those kinds who rage against `nanga naach' and `videshi parampara'. Don't Muslim extremist organizations do the same? Don't the left parties keep raving and ranting about consumerist culture and western lifestyles? What was the need to identify the ideology of the political party activists? This film was just about aimless youth. Why bring in the religious fundamentalism angle into it? And then labour the point that such chauvinism is the hallmark of the Hindutva types?
I had felt a similar sense of outrage when I had seen Mahesh Bhatt's Zakhm several years back. That was about illegitimacy and it so happened that the hero's mother was Muslim and father Hindu. So, Mahesh Bhatt being among the self-proclaimed liberals, it had to be about secularism. And how was this to be depicted?
Go check out the picture again, if you've forgotten it. All the good characters are Muslim, Christian and Sikh. The Hindu characters belong to a Shiv Sena kind of organization and are rabid fundamentalists who cause riots. The hero's brother who joins them is, therefore, a wayward youth who is brainwashed by them. The hero is not brainwashed by them and is, therefore, the hero.
My question is simple: aren't there fanatics in other religions who do the same amount of harm as the Shiv Senas and Bajrang Dals do? How come they are never caricatured like this? If there is ever any hint of caricature, our pseudo-liberals are quick to jump to their defence and immediately blame the saffron brigade for vitiating the atmosphere.
Really, when are these double standards going to end? How long are we to treat fanaticism by Islamic groups with kids' gloves and even try to rationalize it even as we keep condemning Hindu fanaticism? Fanaticism has no colour. It is fanaticism and has to be condemned whether it is green, saffron or red (yes, communists are also fanatics).
And for what I've written, I'm going to be ideologically profiled - as a Hindutva type!
1 comment:
Hinduvta is politically motivated but restrained. It is practised within the geographical bounds of the country to create factions, communal divide, gain political control and hence secure political careers. Hindus kill, loot, rape, burn Muslims in Gujarat and in Mumbai. So, while fundamentalist Hindus wage wars of a base and deplorable kind, they do it in their backyards, and not go around bombing buildings and planes in America. Therefore, Hindu fanaticism is acceptable.
Post a Comment