In 1991, India underwent a drastic makeover with the dismantling of the regulatory regime and the ascending of the neoliberal order. The reforms ushered in the spectacle of the New India – a potential global superpower. A year later, India witnessed the demolition of the Babri Masjid where a violent mob engaged in open violence unlike never before. It is only after a close reading of these two watershed events that we understand the intricate links in such a way that the former reinforces the latter. What happened to Afrazul in Rajasthan recently is the latest chapter in the story of ties between Hindutva and neoliberalism.

Mohammed Afrazul – a migrant Muslim worker was hacked to death by Shambhulal Regar and set on fire in Rajasthan. The video of the incident was shot by Regar’s 14 year old nephew and was then circulated online. In the video, Regar engages in an anti-Muslim diatribe and expresses his hate towards inter-religious marriage (“love jihad”). As the video went viral, dozens have expressed their support for the act, which means that they endorse murder as an effective instrument to drive home the message of Hindu supremacy. Yesterday, Hindu groups stormed Udaipur High Court, unfurling a saffron flag in support of Shambulal.

How should a 21st century Indian react to this? That the contents of the video clipping invoke in us strong questions about morality and the idea of progress itself is beyond any doubt. But what is more crucial here is how this event exposes the ugly underside of our democratic order and the “unity in diversity” paradigm that we cherished for long. The animosity worsens with socioeconomic instability and outbursts under a recalcitrant state machinery.

Rajasthan’s DGP called it “a brutal crime:” “Prima facie it does not look like this is done by a normal human being”, he said. These words are quite representative of the public narrative around the incident. But is this something that can be called abnormal given what India has witnessed in the past year or so? That this psychopathic behaviour deviates from “normalcy” should not be exaggerated beyond a certain degree. What is evident from the past year is how such events have become part of our daily news. On one day, a man is murdered for having the food of his choice and on another day, a woman is shot dead for doing her job as a journalist. There is sadly nothing abnormal about it. There has been a normalisation of violence. There has been a normalisation of fear. The murders are both tacit and overt manifestations of the contents of the Hindutva project.

As of now, reports suggest that the murderer has no connections with any Hindutva organisation. But such an attempt to distance the two is immaterial. The “lone-wolf” terror attacks in the US are carried out by people who are not directly affiliated to any terror groups. What happened to Afrazul is strikingly similar. The shock value of the video clipping is an element of a concerted project to provoke such extremist tendencies. Regar in his hate speech explicitly makes clear his anti-Muslim sentiments.

However, the debate around whether the state machinery is saffronising the nation is missing the wood for the trees. Obviously, the outburst of this violence is the result of the silence of the current dispensation and as the old maxim goes, “silence implies consent.” The condemnation, if any, was too little and too late. The deafening silence from the authorities lends power to perpetrators of violence and thus legitimises it on an institutional basis. But, what is more important is how this penchant for violence against the Other has been lurking around our democratic and secular fabric for long without being addressed properly. This is irrespective of the party holding power. Thus, Hindutva becomes a structural issue in Indian society and hence needs to be dealt with structurally.

Afrazul, like Mohammed Akhlaq and Pehlu Khan, belonged to the poorest realms of the working class. Afrazul was an unskilled Muslim migrant labourer and thus, a victim of multiple axes of marginalisation and oppression. Regar was a marble trader and lost his fortunes after demonetisation. Thus, at a time when there is a large-scale assault on the working class and the peasantry, we see how religious identity is being effectively utilised as a primary instrument of oppression. These are essentials of the project of identity politics that is perfectly compatible with neoliberal globalisation.

While a visible thread exists that binds the demands of various labour unions, it is the invisible force rooted in abstract identities that divides them. Fragmentation based on identities strengthens homogenising forces in a society and thereby, mainstreams fascist narratives. This is precisely why many reacted positively to the murder – as an endorsement of the Hindutva agenda. They see it a just punishment meted out to someone who violated the Hindu sanctity by engaging in ‘Love Jihad.’ Whether this allegation has any empirical validity or not is secondary to them, what matters is that the message is sent loud and clear. This is not a surprise as they are infamous for publicly celebrating Gandhi’s assassination.

That there exists a deep seated animosity between the two communities in certain pockets of India is well known. But why is it sustained and how is it perpetuated and spread to different regions? Is Hindutva violence merely an expression of cultural violence or is it systemically tied to the violent modalities of a neoliberal economy? Is this not a systemic failure, as it has failed to ensure a basic standard of living for the masses? And is this not a reason for such an identitarian polarisation that is not effectively curbed by a reticent state machinery?

These are questions that need to be asked by the counter-movements against Hindutva hegemony, for any such movement should also aim at a structural transformation so as to tackle the source of this violence. Incarceration of the murderer is not an adequate deterrent as it is similar to cutting off a hydra’s head. The instability of a neoliberal regime inevitably sounds the death knell to the liberal democratic values except in pockets of resistance against this hegemony.

(The writer is an MA student in the Department of Economics, University of Kerala)

Latest News