Another front in the religious wars
Eliza Griswold at the New Yorker starts with a story of a father and two sons, Pehlu, Irshad and Arif Khan, driving home from a market in Jaipur with two cows.
That afternoon, Irshad climbed into the truck alongside his father and brother. Cows are sacred to Hindus but Irshad had made this trip dozens of times since he was a boy. He’d heard rumors of potential trouble for Muslims at roadside checkpoints, where members of a militant Hindu youth group called the Bajrang Dal were intimidating Muslim traders in the name of protecting cows. Still, Irshad wasn’t nervous. “We had no fear at all,” he told me recently. “We were coming from a government-organized fair, and buying and selling cows is a legal business.”
The militant Hindu nationalism that the group espouses is not new. Nathuram Godse, who assassinated Gandhi, on January 30, 1948, was a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, or R.S.S., a violent right-wing organization that promotes Hindu supremacy. Members of the Bajrang Dal are the movement’s foot soldiers, deployed in instances of mob violence or for targeted attacks against Muslims and other religious minorities. Founded in 1984, the group was part of a movement to destroy the Babri Masjid, a sixteenth-century mosque located in Ayodhya, India, which was built by the emperor Babur. (The mosque was ultimately demolished during a violent R.S.S. rally in 1992.)
Since Modi’s election in 2014 the Bajrang Dal have become far more powerful.
In the past seven years, according to Factchecker.in, an organization that tracks hate crimes, there have been a hundred and sixty-eight attacks by Hindu extremists, in the name of protecting cows, against Muslims and other religious minorities. The attacks left forty-six people dead. “It’s really a very, very bad moment for Muslims in India,” Salman Khurshid, India’s former foreign minister and the author of a forthcoming book, “Invisible Citizens,” on the systematic oppression of Muslims in the country, told me.
And, of course, a Bajrang Dal gang stopped the three on their way home and beat them up. The father died.
When the news of his death spread, the boys said that the mob returned and demanded his body so that they could desecrate it. The doctor hid the corpse in the hospital basement, and a police unit moved the boys to another hospital for their safety.
Nice touch.
Modi is up for re-election this year and he’s worried. People voted for him because he was expected to be good for the economy, but that didn’t pan out.
Some analysts worry that he will try to distract voters from the slowing economy by doubling down on nationalist rhetoric. “With little to show in terms of economy or development, Modi’s only remaining platform is nationalism,” Tanweer Alam, a political analyst, told me. Many critics argue that the rhetoric espoused by Modi and the B.J.P. has also intensified tensions in Kashmir, where the Indian government is struggling to quell a year-long spike in violence. In February, forty Indian soldiers were killed by a suicide bomber, who blew himself up by driving into a paramilitary convoy. The bomber claimed to be a local man named Aadil Ahmad Dar, who, in the past year, had left home to join the militant group Jaish-e-Muhammad, which is based in Pakistan. It was the most lethal attack in the region in decades, and Modi responded by threatening “a befitting reply,” and then launched air strikes against northern Pakistan. Pakistan subsequently shot down at least one Indian jet, further heightening tensions.
Could we lock Modi and Trump in a room and then lose the key? If you wanted to add Kim to the mix I wouldn’t object.
The US hasn’t helped.
The United States has generally remained silent regarding the repression of minorities in Modi’s India. In 2015, when Modi was selected as one of Time magazine’s hundred most influential people in the world, President Obama wrote a glowing tribute and said nothing of the militant nationalism that helped bring Modi to power. Despite President Trump’s public support of religious freedom, he has not criticized the oppression of religious minorities in India. Modi has made several high-profile visits to the U.S., including a state visit in 2017.
So that’s one thing both Obama and Trump got wrong; how touching.
Last July, the pattern of killings of Muslims grew so dire—in 2018, there were thirteen fatal cow-related lynchings—that the Indian Supreme Court demanded that the legislature formulate laws against the practice, which it has yet to do. Last month, Human Rights Watch released a hundred-and-four-page report documenting the violence, and the inaction—and abuses—of the government officials charged with investigating the crimes. “Lynching has become a nationalist project,” Mohammad Ali, a prominent Indian journalist who is currently working on a book about the phenomenon, told me. He said few perpetrators are punished, which has created a culture of impunity. Killers are lauded in some quarters as heroes for defending the faith and eradicating Muslims.
There are videos, many videos.
At the Khans’ house, Shabnam, Irshad’s wife, walked into the courtyard carrying their third child, an infant son, who screamed at the presence of strangers. She told me that their life had grown more chaotic with Pehlu gone; they missed his income, yes, but also the quiet order that he instilled in the family. “There’s no one to bind the family together now,” she told me. She had first heard of the attack a few hours after it happened. A police officer called from a nearby village to inform her and, soon after, someone sent her the YouTube video.
I asked her if it was still online; she nodded, and one of the local human-rights activists pulled out his phone and brought up the YouTube channel. We scrolled through it, looking for the attack. There were dozens of similar videos showing killings of Muslims, which were deeply disturbing both for their violence and for the obvious pride that the attackers took in being Internet stars. In one, a man wearing white pants and a bright pink sweater beat a Muslim man to death with a stick and sets him on fire, accusing him of committing “love jihad”: falling in love with a Hindu woman. After recording the murder, the attacker turns to the camera and says, “I am appealing to all Hindu sisters that don’t get into the trap of these jihadis. These people will win your heart and satisfy their lust.”
Then they find the video of Pehlu’s murder.
Updating to add: for further reading, HRW’s report on vigilante groups who murder cattle herders, and their links to the BJP.
That’s one of the biggest problems with religion – it isn’t about what you practice, but about making everyone else practice it, too. The people who made me pray in school may seem tame compared to this, but it’s all part of the same problem. Go ahead, avoid hamburgers. You’ll be healthier (but stay away from dinners with Trump). Just don’t tell everyone else they have to avoid hamburgers.
Jews and Muslims can be free to avoid pork, but that doesn’t mean they get to criticize anyone who eats bacon (even if that person is another Muslim or Jew, they should have the right to choose how devout to be). People who don’t pray to the Christian god, or who choose to use contraception or have an abortion? That’s their business, not yours.
Few seem able to get that…yes, you have the right to worship. No, you do not have the right to make everyone else kowtow to your form of worship. You don’t want to drink during Ramadan, that’s your choice, but whipping other people for having a drink of juice is not appropriate.
And in my experience, even the very liberal believers can fall into the pattern, though admittedly not violently as a rule, just a rather annoying self-righteousness as they inform you that you must respect their views, and the views of anyone else who calls them religious. They try to persuade you to join their church, because it has the real Jesus, not that Jesus of the fundamentalists who said to kill non-believers in front of him. And you should never, ever say you don’t believe, because that might hurt someone’s feelings. Yeah, no.
As long as we insist on respecting “sincerely-held beliefs” (and is it respect if it’s required?), we will continue to have a problem speaking up about atrocities, because we will not get to the root, which is that you, whoever you are, think I must believe like you do about something neither of us has any evidence to support.
I despise most of the Hindutva organizations (if you are unfamiliar with the term, it essentially means Hindu supremacist). They encourage the worst forms of bigotry among people, foster pseudoscience and anti-scientific thinking and are just one step removed from being outright fascists.
In many ways, India under Modi has become a more hostile place for minorities of all types (just like the US under Trump) but the government is less corrupt and works better. The Congress party may be the secular party (as opposed to the BJP which pays lip service to secularism while encouraging the worst of the Hindu fundamentalists) but they have been incredibly corrupt and inefficient. That’s the reason why a lot of people I know have reluctantly cast their vote for the BJP in spite of having no love for any of the Hindutva groups. As for me, I’m glad that since I’m a US citizen, I don’t have to choose between these two rancid organizations.
– RM
So uploading videos of people being murdered doesn’t violate Youtube community standards or terms of service?! Holy shit! Maybe I’m sheltered and naive, but WTF!
Hi Raghu Mani, thanks. I’ve written some about Hindutva here over the years, mostly via reading my friend Meera Nanda.
It must be nightmarish to have to choose between incompetence and theocracy. Not unusual, I guess, but nightmarish. I guess the Republicans do us a favor by being too corrupt to be competent.
Were those people trans? No? No problem!
I think pertinent to this discussion: As I recall and according to Arthur Koestler in his book The Thirteenth Tribe as their old empire collapsed, the Central Asian Khazars realised that they needed to scrap their old folky religion and affiliate with a more popular and well-known one if they were to survive in their contemporary world. So they sent a delegation of learned scholars to enquire about Islam, Christianity and Judaism, seeking out highly qualified scholars in centres of those religions. The clerics of they approached were only too happy to oblige.
The Khazar delegation’s final question to each religion’s clerics was most shrewd: ‘if in the event that we choose not to adopt your religion, which of the other two would you recommend?’
The Muslims counselled against that crusading abomination called Christianity, and the Christians against that appalling travesty and fraud called Islam. But the Jewish scholars just shrugged and said ‘take your pick’; or words to that effect. So the Khazars in due course decided to become Jews.
(CAUTION: there is scholarly dispute of Koestler’s thesis.)
But all the same, I think it is a damn good story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Tribe
Israeli historian Shlomo Sand also writes of Khazar origins for Ashkenazy Jews, but he suggests they were conquered and absorbed, like most other groups who “converted” to various religions. Sand disputes the concept of any “people nation” before literacy, and thus disagrees with the concept of “ancient (Jewish) Israelites of antiquity”. See, for example, his book “The Invention of the Jewish People”.