From: bhatnagr@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Raj Bhatnagar)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: BM-RJB issue (more developments)
Date: 11 Oct 92 22:07:58 GMT
Organization: University of Cincinnati

In article <1b54k1INN23r@pollux.usc.edu> brao@pollux.usc.edu (Bapa Rao) writes:
>
>Of course the truth is that, generally
>speaking, VHP/BJP have no genuine sense of history (other than
>emotionalism at best) and no vision of India's destiny as a nation
>in the world community. 

I think your above assessment is quite far from the ground reality. 
The most concrete vision of India's destiny being propounded at this 
time in India is the one by BJP/VHP/RSS groups. You may not agree with
that vision, but that does not change the ground reality. According to
BJP etc., India's identity is grounded in the civilizational and cultural
heritage that eveolved in India over the past few millenia. About India's
destiny, you can imagine what their perception is if in their daily prayers
the last line recited (translated) is "Give us blessings that will enable 
us to take our country to the point of Param Vaibhav (Maximum Prosperity)."

In 1947 the vision of India's destiny was presented under the banner of
"Secularism." Secularism, as far as it concerns the freedom of worship
to the individual, is an undisputed trait of Indian heritage and therefore
also a part of Hindutva.

In my view the BIG mistake the proponents of "Secularism" made was to
view the Hindu-Muslim conflict, the biggest social conflict in India at
that time, as a religious conflict. It is NOT a clash of religions (have
you ever heard a debate on the issues of monotheism/polytheism, revelation/
inquiry throughout the eons for which the conflict has persisted?) It is a
clash of Cultures; A clash between India's indegenous cultures and cultures
of the Turko/Arabic/Persian/Afghan invaders of the past 1K+ years. Many a
times in world's history cultures have interacted in a friendly manner
of give and take and have learnt much from each other. But the environment
in the Indian subcontinent is one in which the two cultures are standing
face-to-face as mortal enemies. 

I think Gandhi(Mahatma) was one person who understood this cultural
dimension of the conflict to some extent. His was the last major attempt
in India's history to turn the relationship between the two cultures
from that of mortal enemies to that of friendly comrades. But he failed
in this mission of his. I will put the blame completely at the door of the
Turco/Persian/Arabic cultures' proponents/leaders. A why to the 
previous statement will take very long but it is not difficult to see that 
by their axioms themselves, Indian culture is of all absorbing type and
the other culture is supremacist, trying to annihilate and destroy all the
competitors.

So, the diagnosis of it being a "religious conflict" was wrong, and 
therefore the treatment "secularism" ineffective. In the context of 
the understanding of the dimensions of the
the cultural conflict, RJB is only a symbolic challenge to all those
who are opposed to the Indian indegenous culture being the substrate for the
further evolution of India's identity and institutions. It can surely
absorb influences from other cultures, but the RJB seeks to convey the
message that the attitude symbolized by the Babri structure in 
Ayodhya - the attitude of razing to ground the symbols of Indian culture 
and replacing them by those of the invaders - will be opposed, fought, and
stopped by the BJP/VHP/RSS. This forms a salvo fired in the clash of 
cultures by the VHP, and if victorious, will set the path towards the
resolution of the lingering cultural conflict in India.

All those who are debating the merits/demerits of RJB being at its
original site are like those who may debate the equestrian 
qualities of the ceremonial Ashwamedha horse before deciding whether
it should be caught or not. Some others who are wondering as to why
so much fuss about a temple are like those who may think why wars
are being fought just because the Ashwamedha horse has been caught and
are thinking of trying to ward off the wars by offering an alternative
horse to the Ashwamedha-yagniks.


>
>I agree with Raj's recourse to mythology however. 

Well, a different point, but some of this "mythology" is being
dug up in Dwaraka and will soon be acceptable to most as a version
of "history."


>Of course it is 
>quite another thing that in a Rama Rajya the Kalyan Singh
>government's, or the VHP's defiance of the Law as laid down by
>the Supreme Court would have met with swift and condign punishment
>as surely as Rama's arrows fly straight. 
>
>I am sorry to say that VHP and BJP haven't the foggiest conception
>of Rama or Krishna. About the only thing we can expect from that lot
>is a combination of post-Krishna Dark Ages and post-Rama obscurity
>for the nation. 
>

Well, I have keyed in enough for today. I may mention a few points
about the above few lines some other time.

>Bapa Rao

---raj