QUESTION:
Why anti Muslim bias is so profound among Hindutva supporters?
Have anything to say about this topic?????
Maybe to help us understand we can turn to a pioneering shaper of Hinduvta thought: Savarkar. Here I am indebted, in particular, to the work of Janaki Bakhle and her outstanding intellectual biography of Savarkar:
Savarkar and the Making of Hinduvta.
Savarkar and Gandhi were antagonists. Both wanted to ‘wake up’ Indians, to transform the subjective consciousness of Indians, to enable Indians to feel their ‘true’ culture in their bones. For both, sacrifice rather than self-interest, was the central precept. But whereas Gandhi emphasised non-violence and inverted masculine norms, Savarkar believed firmly in violence and the ‘spilling of blood’ and believed in a muscular form of nationalism. He also had a visceral dislike of Muslims and felt that Gandhi was too soft on Muslims.
What are some of the factors shaping his antipathy towards Muslims? One was ‘historical memory’ - no matter how simplistic that memory was. Eschewing nuance, and adopting a primary colours approach, Savarkar wrote:
“Muslims came to India and engaged in all kinds of acts; lakhs of Brahmins were lined up and mercilessly slaughtered; innumerable women were defiled by rape. Hundreds of women and children were taken off and sold into slavery in their countries; thousands of Rajput women on account of their lustful cruelty repeatedly committed jauhar—like the open jaws of a spreading volcano, into the depths of the pure fire that licked its lips they had no choice but to jump, Rajputs, Marathas, Sikhs, and other lakhs of warriors who generation after generation shed their blood to protect both their religion and their country from the attacks of these violent and lustful Muslims. Because of their boorish imagination, they don’t think any text other than the Qurān is worthy, they reduced India’s unmatched treasure of books and libraries to ash, razed thousands of temples to dust, defiled thousands of idols and looted India.”
This feeling of past collective suffering at the hands of Muslims was a particularly useful trope in Savarkar’s attempt to awaken Hindus from “narcolepsy” and unite the Hindu community.
Leading on from this is, secondly, an emphasis - in Savarkar's discourse - on a muscular form of nationalism, which encourages a belligerent stance towards Muslims. To avenge history, Hindus had to regain their masculinity. This meant:
“we need to raise a huge trained troop of young, strong, united, all rounded, capable men for the purpose of bringing back those we have lost, protecting those we have, keeping our society safe and fearless from the attacks of criminals, letting them know that Hindus will repay a slap with a slap and it is better not to go there, better not to provoke them otherwise they will thoroughly punish us, making sure we instill this dread in them [Muslims], and like Nagpur, to generate this in society, to live in peace with us but dreading us, all Hindus need to do this.”
A third factor was the influence of stereotypes. Bakhle writes:
“Savarkar’s Muslims fell into three stereotypical groups: ungrateful liars who demanded and received special treatment from the Indian government, violent and base Muslims so inherently (even genetically) monstrous that they routinely raped and murdered Hindu women and children, and Muslims who walked all over Hindus, who endured this treatment because over the centuries they had allowed themselves to be emasculated by Muslim men.”
The fourth factor was the centrality of a particular idea of the nation and the ‘sacred’ territory. It was a nativist and ultra-nationalist vision in the sense that a ‘civic’ sense of nationality, based on legal rights, was of little interest to him; his conception was of an organic nation bound by blood and undivided loyalty to its sacred geography. This meant he was deeply suspicious of Muslims and their extra-territorial allegiances which violated his idea of the need for “monogamous love” to the nation.
It would be wrong to think that all supporters of Hinduvta think alike, but I think many of Savarkar's ideas remain relevant for understanding the anti-Muslim disposition often expressed by its most fervent partisans.