The Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari, riled up the Hindutva brigade when he pushed back against the Indian tactic of milking the “terrorism” cash cow. It is a tactic that seeks to dehumanise one’s rival, as in the case of Israel that perpetuates its apartheid policies by labelling the other side as subhuman “terrorists.”
However, the literature on terrorism is clear that combating terrorism requires addressing perceived grievances and just solutions, in the absence of which the cycle of violence from the weaker aggrieved party and human rights violations of the stronger established government continues. But governments that do not wish to address root causes of political, social, and economic grievances continue with their tactics of stereotyping and dehumanising.
Thus, when Mr. Bhutto-Zardari pushed back, stating that, “Osama Bin Laden is dead. But the butcher of Gujarat is alive. And he is the Prime Minister of India,” it riled up the Hindutva brigade in India enough to burn his effigies.
PM Modi did not create Hindutva, he merely facilitated it through state sanction. This is akin to former President Trump providing state sanction to white supremacist groups. Political ideologies of white supremacism where the victimhood is based on race, Islamism where the victimhood is based on religion, and Hindutva where the grievance is based on land, all remain dormant in society until a populist leader removes societal inhibitions through state sanction.
What we witness in India today was always there. That is why despite the clamouring of Indians and Pakistani Uncle Toms on the “communalism” of Jinnah and the Muslim League, the independence of Pakistan was inevitable and the best decision for those Muslims who wanted a nation state of their own and who refused to live under Hindu hegemony.
The alternative would have been to live in a Hindu Rashtra (state) cloaked under a pseudo secular state where Muslims would have to appease the majority by changing their dietary practices, sartorial freedom in schools, ceding mosques to ancient temple claims, and eventually convert through “ghar waapsi” (return home) schemes.
Alternatively, a “good Muslim” in India would be a vegetarian Rahim Chacha (Uncle Tom) who would adopt the hegemonic narrative of Bharat (ancient land of India).
Returning to the Hindutva brigade, it has honed its tactics based on its ideologues including Savarkar, Golwalkar, and Upadhyaya, several of whom were inspired by Nazi Germany. It is therefore not surprising that current Hindutva ideologues try to distance themselves from European fascism and Nazism, by stating that they are not interested in liquidating Muslims but accept them so long as they remain subservient to the narrative instigated by them. But why should Muslims accept their narrative in the first place?
Indians believe their land is Mata (mother) whereas Muslims view it as an Amanah (trust). For the former, the land of Bharat is everything whereas for the latter, their faith stands supreme. Why should one narrative be given precedence over the other? The only way out of the two positions at loggerheads was to have a secular space where power is shared between various groups of the Indian subcontinent. Yet, the Hindutva brigade was never interested in consociationalism (ala Yasser Latif Hamdani) where power was to be shared between Hindus and Muslims, like the English and the French in Canada.
It is this mindset of utter dominance that defines the Hindutva brigade, as it contemptuously sneers at Muslims as madrassa chaps, subjects them to social, economic, and political boycotts, and when questioned, props up the oft beaten defense of the thin veneer of secularism in India and the self-proclaimed eternal victimhood, wailing about long dead Central Asian, Persian, and Afghan warlords, all caricatured as “Urdu speaking Muslims.”
This mindset infects those on the Indian streets burning the effigy of Mr. Bhutto and all those who troll young Pakistani YouTubers expressing their narrative in public. One such case is that of Y Lakho, a young Pakistani social media content maker, who was flooded by hateful messages by Hindutva trolls.
Lakho talked about harmony between Muslim and Hindu Pakistanis despite miscreant elements in both communities. Yet, they lashed out at him with their contemptuous pet narratives without reason or rhyme. This confirms that one cannot reason with the Hindutva trolls. And the more you try to reason with or appease them, the more aggressive they become in posturing. Bullies only respond to strength. And it is this strength that the young Pakistani FM projected when he pushed back at his Indian counterpart.
Pakistanis that make fun of the FM out of spite need to appreciate to give credit where it is due. They can critique dynastic politics and show respect when it is earned simultaneously. They should not be constrained by either/or binaries.
As for the Pakistani Uncle Toms who have made a career out of Pakistan bashing instead of contributing towards instilling pride among Pakistani youth, it is time that they are mercilessly rendered obsolete. Criticism and venting are cheap but providing a viable alternative requires patience, humility, and grace, all three of which are missing among these Uncle Toms.
As for the young Mr. Bhutto-Zardari, he exuded strength when he pushed back at the putrid narrative. This is strength which Pakistan desperately needs for the ongoing climate change crisis, the balance of payment crisis, and social cohesion.
However, the literature on terrorism is clear that combating terrorism requires addressing perceived grievances and just solutions, in the absence of which the cycle of violence from the weaker aggrieved party and human rights violations of the stronger established government continues. But governments that do not wish to address root causes of political, social, and economic grievances continue with their tactics of stereotyping and dehumanising.
Thus, when Mr. Bhutto-Zardari pushed back, stating that, “Osama Bin Laden is dead. But the butcher of Gujarat is alive. And he is the Prime Minister of India,” it riled up the Hindutva brigade in India enough to burn his effigies.
PM Modi did not create Hindutva, he merely facilitated it through state sanction. This is akin to former President Trump providing state sanction to white supremacist groups. Political ideologies of white supremacism where the victimhood is based on race, Islamism where the victimhood is based on religion, and Hindutva where the grievance is based on land, all remain dormant in society until a populist leader removes societal inhibitions through state sanction.
What we witness in India today was always there. That is why despite the clamouring of Indians and Pakistani Uncle Toms on the “communalism” of Jinnah and the Muslim League, the independence of Pakistan was inevitable and the best decision for those Muslims who wanted a nation state of their own and who refused to live under Hindu hegemony.
The alternative would have been to live in a Hindu Rashtra (state) cloaked under a pseudo secular state where Muslims would have to appease the majority by changing their dietary practices, sartorial freedom in schools, ceding mosques to ancient temple claims, and eventually convert through “ghar waapsi” (return home) schemes.
Alternatively, a “good Muslim” in India would be a vegetarian Rahim Chacha (Uncle Tom) who would adopt the hegemonic narrative of Bharat (ancient land of India).
Returning to the Hindutva brigade, it has honed its tactics based on its ideologues including Savarkar, Golwalkar, and Upadhyaya, several of whom were inspired by Nazi Germany. It is therefore not surprising that current Hindutva ideologues try to distance themselves from European fascism and Nazism, by stating that they are not interested in liquidating Muslims but accept them so long as they remain subservient to the narrative instigated by them. But why should Muslims accept their narrative in the first place?
Indians believe their land is Mata (mother) whereas Muslims view it as an Amanah (trust). For the former, the land of Bharat is everything whereas for the latter, their faith stands supreme. Why should one narrative be given precedence over the other? The only way out of the two positions at loggerheads was to have a secular space where power is shared between various groups of the Indian subcontinent. Yet, the Hindutva brigade was never interested in consociationalism (ala Yasser Latif Hamdani) where power was to be shared between Hindus and Muslims, like the English and the French in Canada.
It is this mindset of utter dominance that defines the Hindutva brigade, as it contemptuously sneers at Muslims as madrassa chaps, subjects them to social, economic, and political boycotts, and when questioned, props up the oft beaten defense of the thin veneer of secularism in India and the self-proclaimed eternal victimhood, wailing about long dead Central Asian, Persian, and Afghan warlords, all caricatured as “Urdu speaking Muslims.”
This mindset infects those on the Indian streets burning the effigy of Mr. Bhutto and all those who troll young Pakistani YouTubers expressing their narrative in public. One such case is that of Y Lakho, a young Pakistani social media content maker, who was flooded by hateful messages by Hindutva trolls.
Lakho talked about harmony between Muslim and Hindu Pakistanis despite miscreant elements in both communities. Yet, they lashed out at him with their contemptuous pet narratives without reason or rhyme. This confirms that one cannot reason with the Hindutva trolls. And the more you try to reason with or appease them, the more aggressive they become in posturing. Bullies only respond to strength. And it is this strength that the young Pakistani FM projected when he pushed back at his Indian counterpart.
Pakistanis that make fun of the FM out of spite need to appreciate to give credit where it is due. They can critique dynastic politics and show respect when it is earned simultaneously. They should not be constrained by either/or binaries.
As for the Pakistani Uncle Toms who have made a career out of Pakistan bashing instead of contributing towards instilling pride among Pakistani youth, it is time that they are mercilessly rendered obsolete. Criticism and venting are cheap but providing a viable alternative requires patience, humility, and grace, all three of which are missing among these Uncle Toms.
As for the young Mr. Bhutto-Zardari, he exuded strength when he pushed back at the putrid narrative. This is strength which Pakistan desperately needs for the ongoing climate change crisis, the balance of payment crisis, and social cohesion.