KS Muralidharan
They call me Big B. B for Bhakt. Sometimes I am also AB – Andh Bhakt. Mostly, I am a Sanghi. These are intended, not as a medal of honour, but as a mark of shame. We are also derisively described as Hindu nationalists, which, if you have not divined yet, is treated in secular circles in particular, as a cuss word.
My crime – or the crime of People Like Us? We do not hide our support for Narendra Modi, the RSS or a Nation First agenda.
See, we are not andh – blind. We can and do question a government we support. We can and do disagree with a leader we admire. What we refuse to accept is the idea that our convictions alone disqualify us from thinking for ourselves. A label is an easy substitute for an informed argument.
Let’s first understand why People Like Us are guilty as charged.
RSS is treated like a four-letter word that hangs over our heads like the Damocles sword. Descriptions like communal, anti-minority, orthodox, fossilised are routinely hurled at it and, by extension, at us.
The fact is, the word Muslim for example is barely if ever, mentioned in the RSS Shakha where the discussion is mostly centered on unfashionable, Insta-UNnworthy stuff like discipline, service, the need for Hindu and national unity and about freedom fighters whose sacrifices seldom make it into history books.
Does this mean it is beyond scrutiny? Certainly not. But scrutiny should begin with evidence, rather than end with a stereotype.
The Secular warriors will keep hurling at us some anecdotal or historical “evidence” or whataboutery to show how RSS is a secretive organisation with a sinister agenda but sinister and secretive organisations do not endure for a hundred years, and that too, bear in mind, despite repeated and relentless attempts to curb, ridicule and ban it (as it was banned in 1948, 1975 and 1992) by every non-BJP government. Such opposition to the RSS is always in the name of secularism, which as everyone knows today, is shorthand for anti-Hindu and long hand for pro-minorities.
Does pro-Hindu mean anti-minority? The entire caucus of secular discourse thrives on this binary which quite literally is neither here nor there. Much of the political discourse depends on answering yes to this question even before it has been asked.
A Hindu need not apologise for being Hindu to prove that a Muslim belongs. And a Muslim should not have to distrust Hindu self-expression to prove that she belongs.
The popular discourse invariably follows a stereotyped formula: Pro-Hindu = Nationalist ideology = Modi/BJP Supporter = Sanghi/Andh Bhakt = Anti-Minority. This neatly and conveniently fits into the political narrative about the BJP not being favoured with minority votes. But that is manipulating a half-truth to invent a lie. It is more relevant and instructive to analyse the mindset underlying the behaviour of a vote veto – not to be confused with negative voting because the latter is a vote against the ruling establishment. In contrast, a vote veto is a vote not for or against a political contestant, but only and as a rule, a vote that can directly or indirectly, eventually defeat one particular political party, irrespective of its performance, or even when its performance is better than others, resembling a divine diktat. Weaponizing the vote as a veto against a particular political party for all time does not contribute to a healthy democracy. This is a fact which we must face and address, rather than ignore and justify.
Let us be clear: this is not a plea to spare BJP voters criticism. Criticise the party, its policies and its supporters as sharply as you wish. The issue here is the double standard that treats some political loyalties as considered judgment and others as proof of intellectual surrender. You are not derided as a bhakt or andh-bhakt when you support the Congress or the communists for eternity, you can be a default supporter of the minorities, no questions asked and no answers demanded, and your secular credentials get a permanent lifetime certification. A lifelong supporter of Congress or the communists is seldom dismissed as a Bhakt or asked to explain whether he has stopped thinking. Why should a supporter of Modi be?
Remember: it was a BJP-led government – the very party routinely branded “communal” and “fascist,” and its supporters dismissed as Bhakts – that backed the visionary Dr A.P.J. Abdul Kalam for the Presidency of India. It’s the same BJP that takes a muscular stand against Pakistan, strengthens national security and acts against cross-border militancy and illegal immigration. And, let it be acknowledged, it is the Sangh and Sanghies who are more often than not the first responders in times of a national calamity – even in a place like Wayanad where all they are used to get is abuse and hate. Critics are entitled to question their politics. But labels cannot erase their service, nor can contempt substitute for an argument.
It is only People Like Us who are condemned and shamed day in and day out, for the crime of demanding to be respected and treated as equal citizens and not merely as a Hindu majority, and calling out the appeasement of minorities. Which do not forget, is not because of any love for them, but for the sake of their votes.
People Like Us object when legitimate demands for equal treatment are waved away as majoritarian entitlement. We also object when questions about political appeasement cannot even be raised without suspicion falling on the questioner. These are arguments to have openly. Calling someone a bhakt does not settle them.
Are there black sheep among us? Of course. No movement can claim immunity from prejudice, misconduct or plain foolishness. When supporters cross the line, political affinity should offer them no shelter. But the same principle must work in both directions. An individual’s misconduct cannot automatically become the moral identity of every person who shares his political preference. Hold us responsible for what we say and do. Do not convict us by association and call it analysis. Examine the claim. Challenge the evidence. Expose the contradiction. But do not mistake the ease of dismissing a person for the strength of answering him. Contempt masquerading as intellectual superiority is snobbery to the power of two.
Of course, there are other competing labels on the other side as well like left-liberals, woke circuit, and the latest Dimagi Naxals, etc. But what cannot be ignored is that they virtually own the ecosystem, despite having lost political power and facing a shrinking governance footprint. Note too that for a lot of people, being dubbed as a leftist or part of the secular and Woke circuit is taken as a badge of honour.
It is also true that such labelling is used lazily and unfairly. We should rather challenge an opponent’s argument than guess their character from a label. Yet it is hard to ignore a familiar social reflex: in secular influential spaces, “Sanghi” is uttered as if the discussion is over before it begins. For these worthies, a Sanghi/bhakt/andhi-bhakt is akin to something the dog brought home. We do not merely have a different point of view, we do not just have a different perspective, we are, in their eyes, a lower species, who need to be talked down to, who need to be shown their place, and who simply don’t know what is good and right, QED.
Fact is, you will readily find instances of a Sanghi extending support to truly secular causes like Uniform Civil Code for example, but finding a secularist willing to apply the same test to every religious practice, is like finding a needle in a haystack. You may eventually find one but it will prick the entire haystack. They are more comfortable in protesting over Palestine, with whom India has no involvement or connection whatsoever. While compassion does not become less sincere when it crosses a border, it becomes less credible when it stops at a political boundary.
This spiel will not end any sooner. Even if BJP continues to win elections, and the all-important LS 2029. Elections decide who governs. They do not, by themselves, decide who gets a fair hearing in classrooms, newsrooms, drawing rooms or public debate.
But the national mood will see a paradigm shift when the ecosystem is won back left, right and centre. Will that mean the beginning of a Hindu Rashtra? Answer: Should it matter? The land of the Hindus has for centuries been welcoming and tolerant of all communities and faiths. If you are tempted to say “Oh there goes the Sanghie…”, let the conversation for a change not end, but begin there.
