A New Imagination of Hindu Heritage

Asia News Agency

A New Imagination of Hindu Heritage

The chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath, has made a few interesting comments on the idea of heritage in a recent interview. Referring to the political controversy on the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, Adityanath said, ‘reclaiming heritage is not a bad thing. ‘Sanatan’ (an alternative term to the exonyms of Hinduism, including Hindu Dharma) proof is now visible in Sambhal. Disputed structures should not be called mosques. India will not be run on the Muslim League mentality.’

This statement is not surprising at all according to Hilal Ahmed (Associate Professor, CSDS, New Delhi).  “Adityanath has worked hard to establish himself as an assertive Hindutva leader. The invocation of ‘sanatan’ dharma in a more radical and profound manner to create, sustain and nurture new political possibilities revolving around temple-mosque disputes is quite understandable. However, there is something entirely new in this assertion. Adityanath, it seems, is trying to offer a very different interpretation of Indian/Hindu/‘sanatan’ heritage. This interpretation stems from an emerging form of Hindutva politics, which has not been given adequate attention after the Supreme Court judgment in the Ayodhya case in 2019.”

 

Four crucial facets of Hindu heritage

Ahmed notes Adityanath underlines four crucial facets of what he describes as Hindu heritage: naming/renaming, site versus structure, process of reclaiming, and futuristic resolve.

Naming/Renaming: Adityanath’s “comments stem from this old Hindutva argument. However, his position is slightly different. He is not merely invested in the Sambhal mosque controversy. Instead, there is an inclination to expand the scope of temple-mosque debates in such a manner that the very existence of non-Hindu places of worship eventually becomes controversial. The term, disputed structures, seems to destabilise the established ways in which historical architecture, especially Islamic religious sites, are envisaged as an inseparable constituent of India’s national heritage.”

Site versus structure: The recent controversies on historical mosques, according to Ahmed “are not merely about sacred temples, which were allegedly demolished by Muslim rulers. Instead, it is about the sacredness of the land on which these controversial mosques were allegedly built in the past to dishonour Hinduism. Adityanath also relies on this land-centric imagination to make a profound argument that the ‘sanatan’ built heritage is inextricably linked to the Hindu faith in the holiness of the motherland. The structures of mosques, in this framework, simply emerge as unwanted and/or external entities.”

Process of reclaiming: Adityanath argues that retrieving Hindu heritage is a genuine demand, which, according to him, has been recognised by the court of law in the Ayodhya judgment. However, notes Ahmed “he makes an interesting modification in the conventional Hindutva proposal that the three fundamental sites associated with Hindu faith (‘astha’) — Babri masjid in Ayodhya, the Gyanvapi mosque in Benares and the Shahi Idgah in Mathura — ought to be returned to Hindus purely on religious grounds. He brings in a much broader idea of Hindu heritage to make the process of reclaiming politically viable and practically continuous. The active transformation of functional places of worship into controversial Hindu-Muslim legal disputes may create an environment of ever-evolving competitiveness….”

Futuristic resolve: Adityanath offers us an interesting way to solve these temple-mosque disputes. He calls upon ‘Muslim society’ to come forward and return these disputed mosques and shrines to ‘Hindu society’ to help establish communal harmony in the country.

This new imagination of Hindu heritage, concludes Ahmed “seems to constitute an interesting political perspective, which is going to determine the future trajectories of communal debates and conflicts in the country.”


All Polity Articles