Nip it in the bud

Bal Thackeray’s remarks are reprehensible. There is no moral sanction for Terrorism by any tenet of Hindu Dharma. Those responsible for the Thane bomb blast must be brought to trial and any attempts by them to appropriate moral sanction under Hindu Dharma must be denounced unequivocally. There is no room or place for Terrorism by Hindus for Hindus with Hindu Dharma as moral cover.

Terrorism is Adharma let there be no ambiguity on this.

An Offstumped re-rerun from Flat Hindutva on why the rule of law must be respected as Dharma.

The first in the series of posts on Hindutva has generated quite a healthy debate. Teeing of that debate was the question of violence being justified in the name of Hindutva or for that matter any ideology.

As we?debate what Hindutva must come to mean it is important to establish a basic premise on the purpose of an ideology.

What role must ideology play ?

Ideology must play the role of a guide. A guide that you can turn to when presented with a situation to answer the moral questions of what is the “right” thing to do and what actions would be “wrong” in a given situation. In that sense ideology must play the role of a moral compass. With the help of a set of core principles that are both clear and unambiguous?such a moral compass must also provide a way by which the principles can be applied consistently across situations.

So?if Hindutva is an ideology that seeks inspiration from centuries of Hindu Thinking then?it must derive itself from Dharma for Dharma is the ultimate moral compass.

While Dharma is an all-encompassing notion of Justice for all aspects of human life, let us limit our interest in Dharma for the purpose of this discussion to Law Enforcement and the Rule of Law.

Some of the finest commentary on the nature of dharma is the Gita, it is little surprise that both Gandhi?and Golwalkar derived their sense of dharma from the notion of “desireless action” or “anaskata”.

Why is “desireless action” relevant here ?

Two reasons.

First reason?is in the role of the State in enforcing the laws. For the State to be seen to be discharging its Dharma it must enforce the laws impartially with no vested interest. In such desireless enforcement of the laws of the land lies the Dharma of the State. So a Government being run by a party that claims to be inspired by an ideology (Hindutva) based on centuries of Hindu thinking has to always enforce the laws of the hand impartially. Otherwise it will not just be guilty of not living up to its constitutional obligations it would also be guilty of not being true to that which it claims to be inspired by.

This is very important for it means two things. Firstly it means?that to adhere to Hindutva means to unambiguously and clearly adhere to enforcing the laws of the land at all times, impartially. Secondly it means that to adhere to Hindutva means no room for recourse or rationalization or justification for not enforcing the rule of law under any pretext.

The second reason why “desireless action” is relevant here is in respect for the rule of law. For any individual to be seen to be discharging his or her Dharma his or her actions must be desireless. Any action motivated by anger, conceit or deceit to violate the rule of law would not just be constitutionally illegal but would also amount to adharma. So if any individual or groups of individuals claim to be inspired by an ideology (Hindutva) based on centuries of Hindu thinking they have to be seen to be respecting and upholding the Rule of Law.

So to adhere to Hindutva means to unambiguously and clearly adhere to respecting and upholding the rule of law at all times with no room for recourse or rationalization or justification for violating the rule of law in the name of Hindutva. The exception however would be in fighting adharma when the rule of law enforced by the State is not “desireless” and is motivated?by an all-encompassing Adharma,?as was the case with the British rule and the freedom struggle.

So it must be unambiguous and clear that acts of violence such as the tearing down of the Babri Masjid, the murder and rape of innocents in Mob violence,?acts of vandalism?are not just illegal and unconstitutional but they also amount to adharma and hence cannot be morally sanctioned or justified by Hindutva.

It must also be unambiguous and clear that inaction by the State in responding to acts of Terrorism, reluctance of the State to enforce the rule of law against those who seek to threaten violence as in the Taslima Nasreen case and attempts to justify State sponsored violence as in Nandigram are also adharma.

As a corollary by standing for respect for the rule of law and enforcing the rule of law at all times, Hindutva would stand for protecting individual freedoms and hence would be liberal in its outlook. What then of restrictions on freedom of speech and incidents like Vadodara. Well those are subjects for the next post, however …..

Offstumped Bottomline: There is no escape from the moral certitude of Dharma and Adharma for adherents of Hindutva. Hindutva must come to unambiguously and clearly stand for enforcing the rule of law. Such a Hindutva would be serving National Interest as it would stand as a moral guard against our country becoming a Soft Nation. Hindutva must also come to unambiguosly and clearly stand for respecting and upholding the rule of law. Such a Hindutva would stand for protecting individual freedoms and hence is liberal in its outlook.

Filed under: Flat World Hindutva