Joining the Dots is a fortnightly column by author and journalist Samrat in which he connects events to ideas, often through analysis, but occasionally through satire.
***
Why would a man just appointed to the position of Chief Minister of a state, with the huge job of improving the lives of its citizens on his hands, begin his innings by commenting on what appears to be his foremost concern — women wearing ripped jeans? What idea of religion or spirituality could possibly inspire a true believer to brutally beat up a child who came to a place of worship to drink water, merely because of the community the child belonged to? And who are the people who are still trying to find excuses and justifications for such execrable, inhuman behaviour?
It would be simple and tempting to stick on them the label of one political party and its affiliates to which they generally belong, and be done with it. It would also be superficial; the superstructure of such politics stands on a deeper social foundation.
That social foundation has, for thousands of years, held the rigid observance of taboos of caste and food, of purity and impurity, and of touchability and “untouchability”, to be matters of the utmost importance. The enforcers of those taboos have observed with horror the dilution of their cherished norms since the establishment of British rule in colonial India, when “inter dining” meaning people of different castes and even different communities eating at the same establishment became socially acceptable. Worse was to follow; even “inter marrying”, or people of different castes and communities marrying one another, began.
What we are witnessing now, in the form of enforcement of taboos of food, and the push against what is called “love jihad”, is an assertion of power by those who wish to conserve the old ways.
Like conservatives in Afghanistan who are aghast at the idea of women singing, or of those in Iran who abhor the idea of a woman being out with a man not her relative, or those in Saudi Arabia who cannot countenance the notion of ladies keeping their heads and faces uncovered, they are determined to preserve what remains of the social order they believe is moral. In the US, Ireland and Poland, among other countries, abortion has been a hard-won right, and in some cases, an ongoing battle that women continue to fight.
While in many parts of the world, including India, such conservatism specifically targets women, trying to police everything from their clothes onwards, there are examples from the West of conservatives battling to conserve social practices that target children and even animals. In England, for example, the Right-wing fought until 2019 to keep up their tradition of hunting foxes. In the US, they keep fighting, successfully, to retain the most absurd gun laws in the world, despite the repeated gun massacres in schools and colleges that are a uniquely American phenomenon.
Whatever progress societies around the world have achieved is in spite of such elements, not because of them. The orthodox Hindus in India 200 years ago fought to preserve the practice of sati or the burning widows at the funeral pyres of their husbands, which was outlawed by the Bengal Sati Regulation of 1829. When they failed at this, they battled against widow remarriage, against the likes of Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar. In subsequent years, they did not want girls and those of lower castes to be educated. They also did not want people of the lowest castes to even walk on the same roads as them, or to wear proper clothes. In Kerala, it took a movement to “allow” women of lower castes to cover their breasts because there was “breast tax” on low caste women wearing clothes on their upper bodies.
The old elites everywhere in India certainly did not want women and lower castes to compete for the same jobs as upper caste men. At every step, their stupid, obdurate resistance was overcome by the progressives and liberals of those times and places. It helped that a British colonial government was in power, because if the local elites had been in power, such social transformation would not have been possible. We are now seeing what it is like when political as well as social power are concentrated in the hands of the kind of people who rigidly defend ancient traditions of discrimination. Indeed, they want to bring back their “golden age”, one where women and lower castes were treated worse than cattle.
The desire of such elements to conserve their favourite social traditions is now, however, at odds with their enthusiasm for development. The kind of militant desire evident in efforts to conserve food taboos and social norms of who can marry who is missing when it comes to conserving the oldest and most precious part of the country’s heritage, its natural heritage. This is strange since Hinduism as a faith actually has a lot of reverence for nature, especially rivers and mountains. However, the destruction of the natural heritage is justified by arguments of “national interest”, although it is highly doubtful that the nation is in fact benefited in any sustainable way by many of these acts. Where national interest cannot be invoked, the word “development” is used, although what precisely is meant by development, who benefits from it, and who pays the price, all remain vague.
It is ironically the hated liberals who tend to be more interested in saving forests and wildlife. They are also the ones who seem more concerned about conserving much of India’s cultural heritage as well. One would imagine that conservatives would wish to conserve all the many cultures and languages of India, but in fact, as we all know, this is not the case. The conservatives actually want to erase all the myriad smaller local traditions, cultures and languages to reduce everything to just one: one language, one culture. In this, they are inspired and motivated by 19th century ideas of nationalism which imagined nations as united by a single culture and/or language.
The world has moved on since those ideas of nationalism led to two world wars, but as usual, our conservatives are at least 75 years behind in their thinking. What the world thinks today, the bright sparks among them will think 75 years hence.
By then, a lot of India’s cultural and natural heritage may already be extinct — and that is the best case scenario, because the worst case scenario involves cataclysmic climate change making large parts of the country and planet uninhabitable for humans. In that situation, who eats what, wears what, or marries whom will not matter, but I am sure there will still be hardcore communal and casteist elements for whom preserving their ancient taboos will remain more important than preserving life on Earth.
Small minds and hearts cannot conceive of any cause greater than the sum of their prejudices.