 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. I am Neelanjan Mukhopadhyay and you are watching Present, Past and the Future. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said the decision to field Pragyat Singh Thakur from Bhopal is a symbolic reply to those who denigrated the 5,000 year old Hindu civilisation. Her candidature is indeed deeply symbolic. It is representative of the BJP taking its Hindutva campaign one notch higher. There was a time when Lal Krishna Advani refused to contest elections till he was cleared of charges in the Havala case. Now the BJP has put up a candidate who is not yet acquitted of charges of terrorism, of an act that killed people. Obviously the BJP values its judgement more than the courts. In its eyes Pragyat Thakur is a brave Hindutva warrior and what the judiciary thinks let it be damned. The BJP leaders are frothing over the term Hindu terror becoming part of Indian political discourse. But this is a case of double standards. Did the BJP protest when Sikh militancy or Sikh terrorism was part of everyday conversation? Or has the BJP ever raised a whimper as Islamic terrorism has become a globally acceptable phrase? The BJP misses the point. No one is saying ever or even implying that Hindus are terrorists. Rather those who have used Hinduism as political tool have a long tradition of using terror and violence, physical as well as verbal. To discuss this extremely important matter and what lies ahead, I am joined by two distinguished masters of their own field. My first guest is Aditya Mukherjee, eminent and ace historian and somebody who speaks very fearlessly. Sumit Chakravathi, my second guest, very eminent journalist editor of Mainstream, one of those few magazines which continues to speak without any fear. Sumit Chakravathi, let me begin with you by asking that the BJP leaders right from the top of the bottom are saying that Pragyat Singh Thakur has a clean chit. Clean chit, that is a phrase, one of the favorite phrases of the BJP. At a deeper level, the implications of imposing their opinion on something on which a judicial process is still under way is deeply ominous. But you really think that with this decision, they are really saying that let the judiciary take its own time. We have already reached a judgment and this is it that she is not involved of terrorism. No, that is true. I think they are trying to cook a smoke at the judiciary. But at the same time, why have they decided to field Pragyat Singh Thakur from that particular constituency from where the former chief minister of Madhya Bradesh, the BJP is contesting. Possibly because he had used the term probably in the past, he had used the term Hindu terror by referring to his... No, I will talk about that Hindu terror and the Tantac. There is a lot of distortion on that, but we will come to that later. But that could be the reason, I am saying. Deepvijay Singh has in any case been a bit a critic of the RSS and the Sankh Parivar for several years and he has been among the very few people to have actually talked about it at time when it appeared that the Congress was possibly going to be a bit weak. Aditya Mukherjee, let me ask you that let us go back to the past. We are saying that the legitimization of Pragyat Thakur through the selections. Let us go back to the time immediately after the Gandhi assassination case. Savarkar was acquitted, yet he lived for 15 long years and those decade and a half he spent in political wilderness. Nobody would touch him with a barge pull, not even the RSS, which at that time was becoming politically ambitious. Now in the last seven decades or so, you know, there has been a huge transition that somebody who is completely shunned to someone who is actually being embraced and being put on a pedestal as the brave bold warrior of Hindutva. Massive transformation. Nilanjan, I would not quite agree with that. This notion that now the fringe has come to the front. The fringe is the front. That is what the RSS is all about from the beginning. And it has been part of RSS strategy that when you are caught in any act, unlike what the Indian nationalist leaders used to do, when they were caught, they said, yes, I did it, punish me for it. They would say that we were not there. So this is exactly what was done with Savarkar, with RSS. They said we were not there. Gandhi Savarkar actually cried. You know, the man who Patel said was the chief conspirator in the murder of the Mahatma, and which was proved later by the Jivanlal Kapoor commission also. He actually cries in court saying that, you know, I'm so hurt that this great man is died. So RSS had this traditional style of covering up, of wearing a Bukhota, hiding the person who is in the firing line for the time being. But now they are not hiding. Now they are not hiding. What I'm saying is they do not change from their core ideology, their core ideology. He actually talked about it that in 2014, Modi veiled his that's right. Communalism. He would refer to at that point. Development. He talked about development. But when it came to his Hindutva agenda, it was Rahul Gandhi who was referred as Shehchate. That's right. Not as Rajkumar or as Yuvraj. Delhi's Sultanate, not Delhi's Samaraj. You know, language is very important as a political strategy also. So there's definitely in 2019, we are seeing a certain amount of prisoners which was not there previously. Not true. You see, I do not agree with that. Even in the time of Bajpayee, who's supposed to be their most moderate person, he allows the right man in the wrong path. Supposedly, he allowed Gujarat to happen. He gave a Nehruvian speech in one place and the next day in Goa, he says, no, no, it is a reaction. And he allowed the likes of Sadhvi Rithambda and Uma Bharti to develop under his wings. So this has been always their strategy. So even while Modi is talking development, he's allowing lynching. He is allowing the worst. He's allowing the core ideology of creating hatred towards the Muslims. That has been continuous from the 1930s till today. You know, are there something I wanted to said that I'll talk, take it up later on. This word, this phrase, Hindu terror. Now I try to understand that where did it really start from? What I found was that the first time that the word saffron terror was used was in March 2002, a week after the riots in Gujarat. This was used in a headline in the frontline magazine of dated March 16 to 29, 2002. The headline was saffron terror. It had an introduction which says political direction and police support enable the dead squads of the Hindu right to run riot in Muslim neighbourhoods in Gujarat. This was its reportage by Praveen Swami, who is a contemporary of mine. The second time that it was used was again in frontline magazine after a gap of six years. In November 2008, once again, the headline was saffron terror. This was an article written by Praful Bidwai, another journalist who is no longer with us. The introduction said, Saadvi Pragya Thakur's arrest, mind you, Saadvi comes in by the time, Saadvi Pragya Thakur's arrest and questioning of Hindutva extremists for the Malegao blast point to the need for action against majoritarian extremism. I think it really makes little difference whether the word Hindu terror was wrongly used by Sushil Kumar Shinde or whether it was used by R.K. Singh. We have seen that this is being pointed out that no, it was not the Congress leader who said it, but it was R.K. Singh who Modi has made the minister in his government, really is a material. What is more important is that there was a deliberate plot to target mosques and dagas and to target those places which were identified as being either Muslim majority areas or with significant Muslim presence. After all, non-Muslims would not really be traveling on some Jyotha express. So, there was definitely an attempt on part of that. We are not trying to give it a name, but the point is that there were groups who were as if had political affiliations which was being investigated. Investigations, do you think Sumit Chakruthi have been tardy, have been rather weak? The way in the last five years, one after another, whether it is Malegaum, Makka Masjid, Ajmer Dargah, all the cases you have found that the people have been accused have been acquitted. Yes, look at the Hashim Pura case. Hashim Pura is a different case. No, but how long did it take? Hashim Pura is a different case. The accused were not people who were in any way politically connected with the R.K. Singh. Definitely, that is true. But what you see peeking of is the tardiness of the legal process. So, I am speaking of that. In that context, here of course, there have been several other factors, especially the people in running the government, their attitude, their philosophy, that comes in the way. And it is true that there has been tardiness on the part of the people running the legal system. There is no doubt about it. But what can you do about it? Whether you call it Hindu terror or not, the fact is that in the name of Hinduism, from the word go, they have done terrorist activities beginning with the murder of the Mahatma. What is it? But a terrorist activity organized by Hindutva forces. So, that is what one is referring to. You are quite right. It does not matter whether you call it Hindu terror. By Hindu terror, nobody means that Hindus are terrorists. This is a deliberate misunderstanding to create this feeling. Obviously, they represent a violent, fastest force which creates enemies within the state and using that to build on nationalism. Their nationalism is enemies within the state. That when the Graham Stain's murder took place, what was the then Home Minister's statement? The first statement was that I know such people. These people, I have known their antecedents. They never indulge in such activities. Why did he say this? As if to justify the whole. So, basically what he is saying is that right from the time that the Vajpayee government was there, there was something building up and possibly it had not become as full blown as it has in the last five years. We will now shift to talking about the past associations of violence and terror, where we come to what we say is the second thesis that violence and terror is rooted in the Sankt Pariva's past. They have always despite the Gandhian practice of non-violence because they felt this would prevent Hindu supremacy. The people who have studied the history of the RSS, I have substantially done it. You have also substantially studied that. We find links with the Italian fastest and the RSS. Now, when we also talk about this entire approach of being militarist in nature, militarizing Hindus was one of the basic things. The shakha and its at the concept, every morning you gather and do some basic limb stretching exercises, but the idea was that they wanted to do much more. To what extent is the right wing that Hindu right that we talk about is violence and use of terror, either verbal or physical, embedded in their belief system? Completely. I mean, as you correctly mentioned the shakhas, even better way to look at it is to look at this. Vigilanthism during communal riots, Naaku riots, 1924 and then 1927. Right. Even in the textbooks that they write for children, this is inbuilt that in fact, Buddha is attacked and so is Gandhi for spreading ahimsa or non-violence, which they said makes cowards out of Hindus. So this macho, masculine, aggressive alpha male is their model and they want to build a strong Hindu this thing. Essentially, as I said, and that I think is very essential in fascist ideology, which is always to find the enemy within. So you're strengthening the Hindu because you want to suppress the Muslim and you build your nationalism like that. So instead of the Jews, there it is the Muslims here. That is one. And the other thing that they similar to the Mussolini again, for example, the theory of fascism, is that they equate the nation with the government. If you attack the government, you're anti-national. You're anti-national. If you're attacking the, you're anti-national. So you become, so from government now it has become a single person. You cannot question that single person if you do you're anti-national. Now this is, this is pure fascism. Do you think that this kind of a belief has been rooted in the past of the BJP in our, you know, it's the ideological fountain head, the RSS right from the beginning. But you refer to Savarkar. Yes. Now if you read Savarkar's Hindustra, it is very clearly mentioned, militarize all politics and Hinduize and Hinduize all politics and militarize Hinduism. If this is your objective, of course you can say formally he was not with the RSS. And as you correctly said, Savarkar. Savarkar was not with the RSS because he had, but he was the ideological fountain head. He was the ideological fountain head. Right. And it was his who inspired these people to form the RSS. And today they have put up his, his portrait in the central hall just opposite that of Madhav Gandhi's. That's very symbolically chosen. And in fact that's something which in the years that the BJP was not in power, that ceremony used to be boycotted by the Congress. And all of the Congress leaders. But right after being sown in as Prime Minister, Mr. Modi went in Garland and that portrait, it's time, you know, to shift to what is, you know, to look, look, look a bit ahead, you know, and my third in the final thesis in today's program is related to what's the future looking like. Now since 2014, India has partly become an ethnic democracy with the majoritarian nationalism as its standard. If BJP wins another majority, India will move towards becoming an ethnic hegemony. Majoritarian nationalism will then become a state policy. Do you think that India is moving towards becoming some kind of an Israel type of a state where in Israel, you know, there is the supremacy of the Jews is embedded in the Israeli declaration of independence. In the Indian constitution, Hindutva is not given that position. But let's look at it in terms of, you know, possibilities. Are we moving in that direction under this regime? Very much so. The concerted attempt of this regime is to use state power. They have discovered that they have now got governmental power and which believes in Hindu rastra, but we don't have a Hindu state. So they now need to systematically break down the institutions, change the character of the state apparatuses, the education system, the police, the bureaucracy, the judiciary, and they've gone for it in a very big way and civil society through creating rights, etc, etc. So as you said in the very beginning, instead of this Advi fighting those who are attacking the 5000 year old civilization, they are destroying the 5000 year old civilization. As Samarthasen said, what distinguished ancient India from other classical societies, you know, like Sanskrit from other classical languages was the dialogical tradition. You know, the fact that enormous number of differences could survive in this country, you know, over centuries. That is the Indian tradition, which they are now, it's sad to say, the future that they are trying to bring is one which we would be ashamed of rather than being proud of as we were as Indians. Total homogenization. Total homogenization. You know, Sumit Chakrati, as journalist, we have been tracking this very cleverly that how the BJP and the RSS has been planning for the future and also how do they go about the daily political agenda without ever losing sight of their ultimate goal, the ultimate objective. That while at one level, it is also a very pragmatic organization which you look at immediate needs, but never loses sight of its real goal. Now, if one actually speaks around within the RSS at this moment, you know, there is a certain amount of certainty that they are going to be forming the next government. So, they already have targeted the next real major decisive change would be education and rewriting of history in a much more bigger way. Now, we have seen this that even for the last several decades that whenever they have got an opportunity, history has been targeted. You know, why do you think history is so important for them to change or rather the way history is presented? Because unless you change the historical narrative, you can't proceed further. And it is also a fact which Aditya will be able to substantiate that they don't have enough scholars among them to really fight the historians of today. Will you require scholars in today's world of social media? No, that is true. Where people are graduating from WhatsApp universities? That is true. But at the same time, and I would also like to put another point, you see, that at least in the 90s at least, there were elements, important figures, eminent persons who could intervene. And because of that intervention in 1998, when watchway became the prime minister, the national agenda for governance which they had produced that did not have the three contentious issues, which came into which now they have decided to implement. These were kept out of the agenda for governance. At that time, they didn't have absolute majority. Today they have. And if Modi is to be believed, which I don't accept at all, what he has said recently in an interview that they are going to improve on the 2014 performance. Well, that is the belief and unless you have belief, you would not be able to achieve. But the kind of confidence which he was exuding, that gave rise to very serious apprehensions, even if one doesn't agree with that. But there is some basis on which he is saying, of course, that basis is something else. And if you ask my personal opinion. And you will not find that kind of confidence on his opponents anywhere. No, that is not there. But then he has the state power in his hands. You must accept that. And able to wield that power is actually very important. That state power with that, whether the EVMs will be manipulated or not, we can only guess about it. We can't say anything. That is a very contentious issue about EVMs. I want to say something on the history. On history, history is something which has been constantly, obviously being a historian and somebody who's been at the forefront of the manner in which they have tried to change the syllabus you have a lot to say. But besides history also, there are various other aspects which are also targeted. You have the media which is targeted, you have fake news which is being pushed up. You have parallel platforms being pushed on them to bypass the mainstream media. You have monkey bath, you have blogs, you have various avenues, rationalists, liberals, academicians. You can just think about anybody who is a right thinking person in this country gets targeted. Liquidated. Even liquidated. Some cases, in extreme cases, yes, there have been cases. That is what the cases have been talked about also. Yes, Radhith. Yeah, that is absolutely true. And again, it is in line with fascism. The first thing, they have deeply ideological and they build their ideological basis on the basis of brainwashing, essentially lies. And that is why they need to wipe out actual history. Because if you looked at actual history, for example, if you looked at the national movement, you will find that there is these so-called nationalists are absent. So therefore, they have to recreate a history. In Rajasthan textbooks, they have created a history of the national movement where Jawaharlal Nehru's name is not there. And Gandhi gets one line. And the rest of it is all Savarkar and Golvalkar and others. People who actually apologized to the British, who took pensions from the British. So they have to redo it. But I think the main thing is the attack on the intelligentsia. Everywhere where you have had fascism, either of the left or the right variety, the first attack is on the intelligentsia, people who think, people who ask questions. That's why they attack on the universities. That's why they attack on my university. You know, I keep telling on several occasions, even in a previous episode in this program, I've talked to the minded people of this brilliant sequence from Hira Khaja Deshe where the despotic king says, you know, that people who read more, they obey less. That is why we go and shut down all the schools. So you shut down all sources of knowledge. Or what Pol Pot did, anybody who wears glasses, shoot them down, you know, must be thinking. Well, you can have glasses and look at the world from a different perspective, from which they want to. You know, there's one question, the last question I want to just ask the two of you as we have to. We also see that in a situation like this, there is a certain amount of submission and docility from the side of religious minority, despite the numbers and despite the fact that not every person in the majority community have got completely on the other side. Now, is this submission and docility becoming the way of survival in a majoritarian state? I would like to think that they are a silent majority. They are not a minority, they are a silent majority. And I would like to think maybe you can say that it's your wish. We hope that, you know, that the vocal minority does not triumph in elections, you know. In the elections, they will definitely be vocal when they cast their, when they use it. That's a thought, you know, what's your thought on this? But as you're right, the fact that the minorities are not speaking up. Except in Jammu and Kashmir, you know, where there is a lot of anger. It is indeed a matter of shame for our democracy that they do not even feel safe enough to speak. But to maintain a democracy, it is not the minority who has to defend the minority, it is the majority who has to defend the minority. It is Gandhi who said that the Muslims must be brought back to their homes, that their mosque must be prepared. As we keep saying, you know, that it was very important for today's majority to ensure that today's minorities feel that JF forefathers took the right decision of staying in India, not going to Pakistan. So that is something which we have to do. Well, thank you for coming and joining the program. These are indeed very difficult times. On the one hand, the BJP is the only party which has a national story to tell. Although even this is thoroughly reprehensible. But in the opposition's so-called fragmentation, also lies the truth of Indian diversity. We do not know yet what the people will choose for the moment. With this worrying thought, I sign off for the moment. Thank you for watching this program.