SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA
ARCHIVES

Dilip D'Souza

On The Run From Being Overrun

As I've established too often," Rediff readers were preached to recently, "the press is overrun by leftists." I read this confident assertion and marvelled, as I often do, at the strange customs of the followers of this thing they call Hindutva, that I'll call "Hindutva" if you don't mind. I don't know if it's religious, or perhaps it has to do with that "ethos" they are always talking of. Whichever, believing in it seems to require you to perfect a cornucopia of dramatic poses. You back them up by believing in a raft of dramatic notions.

At least two of those make an appearance in this assertion. One: that the press is "overrun" by critics of "Hindutva." Two: that the critics are automatically, unquestionably, certifiably, "leftists." Now much that we are told about everybody's beloved "Hindutva" would benefit from the light of day; I may as well begin with these two.

Overrun, hmm. The attractive thing about making this claim, you see, is that you can then pretend you are the sole voice of reason, the one bulwark against the flood. That infuses a certain bravado, a machismo, a lone-wolf kind of heroism. Off the top of my head, here are some of those lone wolves: M V Kamath, Arun Shourie, Varsha Bhosle, Swapan Dasgupta, Arvind Kulkarni, Girilal Jain (now dead, of course), A R Kanangi, M N Buch, Sudheendra Kulkarni, R K Karanjia, Olga Tellis, Jay Dubashi, Rajeev Srinivasan.

Sole, lonely, refusing-to-be-overrun bulwarks, all. I'm sure.

That measly list is just writers in English, and just some of those I see in Bombay. I have not included in it such Marathi press stalwarts as Sanjay Raut and Nilkanth Khadilkar, or even that semi-distinguished "editor" and "cartoonist" Bal Thackeray, all flag-bearers for "Hindutva." Nor have I listed writers for such papers as Tarun Bharat or The Organiser or dozens more you can find around the country.

How a press that features such a galaxy of widely read, well-known names can be described as "overrun by leftists" is beyond me; just as absurd are the claims that the press is entirely saffron. From where I'm standing, the press seems to average out quite well, thank you. Leanings one way here are set off by tilts that way there, and the see-saw stays more or less balanced. Bleats that it isn't come from those who find a level field too difficult to play on.

The odd thing is, the bleats come from a set of people who are always proudly saying that they are in the "majority", the "mainstream." But let them come up against a differing opinion? Then you hear only moans about the overrunning leftists. Then, somehow, the brave, proud "majority" has been undermined by those vicious leftists.

Yes, the "leftists." Using that word is a never-fail, optimal-use tactic. Brand whoever disagrees with you a "leftist" and your job is done. That explains everything. Go ahead and fling in words like "proletariat" and "Cuba" too: that only helps the cause and makes it even less necessary to find cogent arguments. That's why a letter in response to one of my columns here graciously encouraged "Shri D'Souza" to "... retire to Cuba, the bastion and haven of proletariat rule", where presumably "Shri D'Souza" will find "the Communists (who are his spiritual masters)." Not one word in it answered questions my column raised, rebutted its arguments.

And why should it? Here's the simple-minded equation the lone wolves of "Hindutva" want the world to make: if you find their menu distasteful, you simply must be a Communist. And since we all know just how discredited a failure Communism is, you must be that kind of failure too. (After all, "Marxism has been proved to be a criminal ideology", another gentle letter informed me). So save yourself, join the mainstream, fall in line with "Hindutva"!

It's enough, almost, to make you feel sad. These poor thinkers are unable to wrap their brains around the idea that there might, just possibly, be a spectrum of opinion on which Marxism and "Hindutva" are only two way stations. A spectrum which has ample room for people who want to keep their distance from both. People, maybe, just like you.

Much the same reasoning applies to another freely-used barb, intimately related to the "leftist" one: "anti-Hindu." If you are sceptical of "Hindutva", see, you're not just an unrepentant Commie, but you must just despise Hindus. This is why one reader felt something I wrote "simply confirms his hatred of Hindus... D'Souza and his ilk want to demolish Hindus." Another made the astute point that I was "a rabid communalist blinded by Hindu-phobia." The preacher whom I quoted to begin this column urged a critic to "take your ... hatred of Hindus elsewhere."

It's seductive illogic, designed specifically to ramp up Hindu feeling against the critics of "Hindutva": they criticise us because they hate us! Rally around to spit on them! But don't ask too many questions, just react to that hatred we're telling you they're filled with!

It's seductive because once it's pronounced that someone hates Hindus, the job, again, is done. There's no need for logic, arguments, evidence, those pesky little details. Besides, there's an even more alluring side benefit. Criticising "Hindutva" is the same as hating Hindus, right? Well, by golly, that must mean that the upholders of "Hindutva" are standing up for Hindus! (Never mind that millions of Hindus themselves disagree).

What easier, if sleazier, way to persuade an audience of a cause than to tell them the other guy hates them? Naturally, that becomes even easier if the other guy has a name like "D'Souza." Ah, well, the name alone tells us that he must be no more than a "bigoted Christian"! (Yes, still another erudite quote from mail about a column I did). Surely he can't have the opinions he does because he is Indian, nothing else? Certainly not! That kind has nothing but "contempt for Hindus"!

And all this rhetoric gets fervent, fawning response from parts of the audience. One such part wrote some months ago, accusing Rediff of being an -- oh yes -- "anti-Hindu organisation." And he must know, because: "Am I a Hindu? You bet. Am I proud to be one? You betcha!" That's why he shows deep concern, through his note, for "our history, our heritage." Rediff he did not agree with. "As an American citizen", he has a unique vision of the American way, perhaps even the American dream. Since the offending letter originated on an American campus, he has sent copies of it to the FBI, asking for an "investigation of [the] background" of the writer. I'm not sure about you, but I feel a shudder of fear for the future of our heritage if it's to be protected by a proud Hindu who, as a citizen of the USA, is too dense to understand what the USA is all about.

Still, he fits well into the "Hindutva" scheme. It makes a fetish of being one country, that everyone who lives in India must feel Indian above all else. Very nice and chummy, no doubt. But offer the slightest argument to its claims, the smallest disagreement with its notions: then suddenly you're not to be considered Indian, above all, any more. Then your name is what defines you. And if it's D'Souza, that says it all. (If it's Ashok Bhushan, you're still a Marxist).

That is, we're all Indians, sure. But only if we all think a certain way. Only if we never so much as open our minds. Because "Hindutva" feels threatened by questioning, by dissent.

Its heroes don't know it, but that's what makes it fundamentally lame.

Now I'm willing to listen to the benefits Hindutva might bring me, certainly. But this "Hindutva" that's working the electoral treadmill once more? Yes, I'll confess: for it, I have nothing but contempt.

Dilip D'Souza