Author: Swapan Dasgupta
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: January 4, 1992

It is unlikely the American academic who coined the evocative phrase 'secession of the successful' had Indian society even remotely in mind. After the Dec 6 happenings in Ayodhya, however there is no better description for the relentless war being waged by a beleaguered political elite against its own people. In the past three weeks or so, even as a leaderless nation attempted to come to terms with its past, present and future, the upholders of status quo have launched a vicious counter-offensive at the very core of nationhood.

The magnitude and intensity of the assault are understandable. Whatever may have been the calculations of the Sangh parivar on the morning of that fateful Sunday, impatient and angry kar sevaks took matters into their own hands and forced a new agenda on India. Hindu nationalism was always an underlying political concern. On Dec 6, Hindutva became a state of mind, the unifying ethos of an ancient nation groping for a modern identity.

The ramifications of this revolutionary break have not been sufficiently grasped. With characteristic shortsightedness, disoriented secularists persist in viewing the explosion as an ephemeral burst on fanaticism - "the face of lumpenised India" - which is quite alien to the spiritual and metaphysical concerns of Hinduism.

The assessment is partially right and horribly wrong. In many places, the riots turned out to be the occasion for settling scores and expressing latent anti-Hindu or anti-Muslim prejudices. But the breakdown of law and order was momentary, and despite continuing tension in many areas, the country has rapidly returned to normalcy. Change and violence are not necessarily co-terminus.

What has, however, altered beyond recognition is the self-image of Hindus. The kar sevaks did not merely demolish the symbol of alien arrogance, they simultaneously overturned the ingrained Hindu mindset of defeatism, masquerading as moral superiority. Gandhiji had initiated the process by harnessing Hindu passivity to a satyagraha against colonialism, which literally guilt-tripped the British into leaving India. Unfortunately, the transfer of power was not accompanied by a corresponding social resurgence and Jawaharlal Nehru's socialistic trust merely succeeded in transposing a set of "modern" values on a people still burdened by a mental servitude.

What is pejoratively labelled "pseudo-secularism" was not merely minority appeasement. That is only a small aspect of the perversion. The central thrust of Nehruvian consensus lay in consciously disavowing Hindu pride. It purposely prevented Hindu society from overcoming the burden of centuries of subordination. India's post-independence development was flawed because culture nationalism was kept out of the purview of nationhood, and Hindu renaissance detached from the political agenda.

On Dec 6, Hindu society was confronted with its own audacity. Initial confusion soon gave way to bellicosity once it became painfully clear that the remaining obstacle to national fulfilment was a political establishment completely out of sync with the prevailing mood. The gap between state and civil society has further increased with constant secularist shenanigans aimed at rubbishing India to its own people. The pious platitudes on Doordarshan, the self-flagellation by deracinated intellectuals and left wing McCartyism have merely reinforced popular unease with a regime which would rather abolish the people rather than elect a new one.

Involuntarily removed from the political arena, even L. K. Advani seems to have underestimated the extent of Hindu disquiet. His depression at the breakdown of the Sangh parivar's discipline and his lament at not being able to abide by the assurances given to the Supreme court suggest an unfortunate reluctance to come to terms with the great leap forward in Hindu consciousness. It is no longer a question of the RSS. BJP or even the Sangh parivar in its entirety. At stake is the future of Hindu parivar of which the sants and the RSS are but a small component. Veer Savarkar grasped this distinction as early as in 1923. "Hindutva", he wrote, "is not a word but a history. Not only the religious or spiritual history of our people as at times it is mistaken to be by being confounded
with the other cognate term, Hinduism... Hinduism is only a derivative, a fraction, a part of Hindutva... Failure to distinguish between these two concepts has given rise to much misunderstanding".

History, a RSS leader told me at Ayodhya, on that decisive Sunday, "does not merely happen; it is also made to happen". Circumstances have forced India to break with its own degrading lack of self-esteem. It can fritter away the opportunity through lack of leadership and mindless populism, thereby precipitating savage secularist reaction.

Alternatively, it can overcome residual squeamishness and prepare to face the future with certitude. After December 6, there is little scope for dithering. Metaphorically, we are all kar sevaks now.