Opinion: Rahul Gandhi's 'Hindutvavadi' Remark Is Worth The Risk

Several commentators have responded to Rahul Gandhi's Jaipur speech which addressed the stark distinction between Hinduism and the 'Hindutvavadi' approach to life. One is pristine, devoted to peace and humanism, whilst the other resorts to violent coercion for political gain. There are many ways of saying the same thing but the spirit and substance of the articulation is inevitably the same. Gandhi versus Godse, perhaps an unfair comparison for the Mahatma, does very effectively sum up the two contrasting world views. Interestingly, some people were confused about Shri Gandhi's emphasis on his audience being Hindu as indeed the country being Hindu. That is not a soft version of Hinduism because the religion is in any case 'soft' and civilized. But Rahul Gandhi perhaps wanted to underscore the essential debate and confrontation within Hindu society and did not necessarily want to draw other faiths into that dichotomy. Of course some people want him to use a secular metaphor instead, and on another occasion, he will surely do so. At present, he may have thought it an urgent priority to prevent any distraction from his core concern. If in the process, the secular, inclusive character of Hinduism, the religion of the majority of Indian citizens, is highlighted and underscored, our national discourse can only gain, as indeed our popular unity.

Yet there are people, particularly those who are closely associated with matters religious and who remain convinced of the Congress party's credentials, who sometimes wonder if the clarity that we project will further confuse ordinary citizens whom they have assiduously attempted to wean away from the net of Hindu pride repeatedly cast by the Sangh Parivaar. The concern might not be entirely misplaced. Hindutva might continue to resonate for the ordinary person without meticulous analysis of its misuse. Furthermore, it is not Hindutva that anyone amongst us questions per se without going into details of its Savarkar origins and the aggressive posturing of those who where it on the sleeve. Chief Justice J S Verma may have regretted defining it as a way of life in the context of election law, but his definition might still be valid to the extent that Hindutva can accommodate most of how a common and honest Hindu lives his or her life. But the way of life that so-called Hindutvavadis lead and the impact on our national life too needs to be disassociated from Hindutva as a way of life. This will persuade honest people that there is no design to undermine their way of life and the sufferers of acts of misdemeanour will not fall prey to the urge to condemn the conduct for which the perpetrators promptly seek the cover of religion though they are an embarrassment for a glorious religion. Hinduism is under attack, they scream, when Hindutva is questioned. They and the ordinary Hindu need to be told that neither Hinduism nor Hindutva is under attack. What is and must be under attack is the distorted and indecent misuse of the term "Hindutva" to serve dishonourable political goals. Hindutva that resonates Kabir, Swami Vivekanand, Gandhi is to be celebrated. One that believes in hate, violence, and killing is to be opposed for what it is, and for being a dark spot on Indian civilization. If anything, we need to unite to protect Hinduism for its beauty and universality.

There are skeptics too, and not just in our party, who believe that it is best to leave this issue untouched for its prickliness and electoral implications. But these people it seems want to live the life of jackals rather than moral lions. No one wants to lose elections repeatedly, but does that mean that we surrender our intellect and moral bearing? Besides, we have lost elections and then recovered to win others. Even in a national landslide in favour of the BJP, we retain 20% of the popular vote. If that is all we can retain, does it mean that we desert people who have remained steadfast supportesr in the worst of times? Democracy is essentially about representation and not just about representation in power. Else there would be no concept of opposition and certainly not of minorities or dissent. Should one lower one's voice to a whisper to win an election? But that would be only if we did not have the courage of conviction and did not trust the average voter.

(Salman Khurshid is a senior advocate, Congress party leader, and is a former Minister of External Affairs.)

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of NDTV and NDTV does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.