Supreme Court dealt a death blow to the sectarian view on personal choice and creative expression in the context of Padmavaat and Hadiya cases by restoring faith in the principle of individual right. Both controversies are different in origin but are linked by a common thread. Both issues are a result of muscular cultural nationalism which India is witnessing since 2014 in the name of political redemption and cultural renaissance. Both controversies are also laced with patriarchy and communitarian view of the power, gender and justice.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;The muscular cultural nationalism worked at two levels in both cases. In the case of Padmavat (which is a case of literature), the controversy became, allegedly, a matter of honour for the Rajput community. It also became an attempt to correct the history in context of the present politics. Even the defeat at the hand of Khilji becomes a moral victory. A victory of character which surpasses the physical and historical fact of defeat.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;In the case of Hadiya, interfaith marriage between two individuals became a conspiracy to change the demographic reality of India. It became an act of subversion, conspiracy by a section of the community, allowing the state to separate the couple. The discourse did not differentiate between criminal conspiracy by few and love marriage between the two.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;Both simultaneously undermine individual right in the context of the argument that no liberty is absolute. Both issues represent a sense of political redemption in terms of course correction of body politics in the present as well as claims of cultural renaissance by positing essence in core values related to a particular period, excluding medieval from ancient by stopping the clock of history. Both also represent shift within the discourse of nationalism. In India, the shift has been tangible. It has become cultural and community-centric, shifting from the civic and the constitutional.

&nbsp;

Once the focus shifts from the civic body to the community, it acquires the power to subsume issues unrelated to it. For example, both Hadiya and Padmawati, apart from communitarian in nature is also very patriarchal. I doubt if the man would have been a Hindu and the woman Muslim in Hadiya case, there would have been an issue. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

Padmavati becomes problematic on two counts. Rajput valour is both an accepted and a contested fact. It is accepted as a code of honour and contested because Rajputs, like any other royalties, made basic compromises to survive whether it was getting incorporated into Mughal mansabdari system or acquiescing to the British paramountcy.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The honour of the Rajput community becomes embedded in Padmavati&rsquo;s body, wherein &lsquo;Talwar&rsquo; and &lsquo;Kangan&rsquo; become symbols of honour, sacrifice and resolve. Most fascinating part is that Rajput becomes interchangeable with Hindu. Rajput becomes a Hindu in the context of a Muslim and posited as the royalty in context of the other Hindu castes. Surprisingly, this sensibility is neither ancient or medieval. It is modern and product of communitarian sensibility, which wants to assert over and above the individual and his rights enshrined in the Constitution.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;Both discourses challenge the constitutional power. Padmavaat and the Hadiya coerce constitutional authorities to do their bidding. Padmavaat receives support from popular governments in the name of law and order and Hadiya from investigating agencies as it sees it as a threat to the state. Both do not differentiate between criminal intent and individual acts of choice and creativity.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The debate gets locked between the binary of us and them wherein the majority community feels that all creative expression gets reserved for them and minority community is allowed far greater religious and cultural expression. This sense of injustice subverts constitutional power with the tacit support of the governments sustaining tension at grass root level.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;This politics is also an assault on the justice system. Justice becomes subservient to popular sentiment. Popular sentiment becomes a cheaply available commodity, amplified over the Internet and TV to be milked at right time and place. It subverts judicial pronouncements in the name of cultural expression and asserts the authenticity of the community over the modern nation-state. In the process, the commitment of the Constitution to an individual becomes a contested fact and the responsibility of the nation and law towards the community becomes mandatory. It reflects the subversion of letter and spirit of the law.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;In both the cases, the Court has played a better role than lawmakers who have fallen prey to sectional sentiments. Democracy should represent, accommodate and care for all sections and their sentiment but should never become a hostage to it.

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;&nbsp;

Community wins, individual loses as nation fights over Hadiya and Padmavaat.

Supreme Court dealt a death blow to the sectarian view on personal choice and creative expression in the context of Padmavaat and Hadiya cases by restoring faith in the principle of individual right. Both controversies are different in origin but are linked by a common thread. Both issues are a result of muscular cultural nationalism which India is witnessing since 2014 in the name of political redemption and cultural renaissance. Both controversies are also laced with patriarchy and communitarian view of the power, gender and justice. The muscular cultural nationalism worked at two levels in both cases. In the case of Padmavat (which is a case of literature), the controversy became, allegedly, a matter of honour for the Rajput community. It also became an attempt to correct the history in context of the present politics. Even the defeat at the hand of Khilji becomes a moral victory. A victory of character which surpasses the physical and historical fact of defeat. In the case of Hadiya, interfaith marriage between two individuals became a conspiracy to change the demographic reality of India. It became an act of subversion, conspiracy by a section of the community, allowing the state to separate the couple. The discourse did not differentiate between criminal conspiracy by few and love marriage between the two. Both simultaneously undermine individual right in the context of the argument that no liberty is absolute. Both issues represent a sense of political redemption in terms of course correction of body politics in the present as well as claims of cultural renaissance by positing essence in core values related to a particular period, excluding medieval from ancient by stopping the clock of history. Both also represent shift within the discourse of nationalism. In India, the shift has been tangible. It has become cultural and community-centric, shifting from the civic and the constitutional. Once the focus shifts from the civic body to the community, it acquires the power to subsume issues unrelated to it. For example, both Hadiya and Padmawati, apart from communitarian in nature is also very patriarchal. I doubt if the man would have been a Hindu and the woman Muslim in Hadiya case, there would have been an issue. Padmavati becomes problematic on two counts. Rajput valour is both an accepted and a contested fact. It is accepted as a code of honour and contested because Rajputs, like any other royalties, made basic compromises to survive whether it was getting incorporated into Mughal mansabdari system or acquiescing to the British paramountcy. The honour of the Rajput community becomes embedded in Padmavati’s body, wherein ‘Talwar’ and ‘Kangan’ become symbols of honour, sacrifice and resolve. Most fascinating part is that Rajput becomes interchangeable with Hindu. Rajput becomes a Hindu in the context of a Muslim and posited as the royalty in context of the other Hindu castes. Surprisingly, this sensibility is neither ancient or medieval. It is modern and product of communitarian sensibility, which wants to assert over and above the individual and his rights enshrined in the Constitution. Both discourses challenge the constitutional power. Padmavaat and the Hadiya coerce constitutional authorities to do their bidding. Padmavaat receives support from popular governments in the name of law and order and Hadiya from investigating agencies as it sees it as a threat to the state. Both do not differentiate between criminal intent and individual acts of choice and creativity. The debate gets locked between the binary of us and them wherein the majority community feels that all creative expression gets reserved for them and minority community is allowed far greater religious and cultural expression. This sense of injustice subverts constitutional power with the tacit support of the governments sustaining tension at grass root level. This politics is also an assault on the justice system. Justice becomes subservient to popular sentiment. Popular sentiment becomes a cheaply available commodity, amplified over the Internet and TV to be milked at right time and place. It subverts judicial pronouncements in the name of cultural expression and asserts the authenticity of the community over the modern nation-state. In the process, the commitment of the Constitution to an individual becomes a contested fact and the responsibility of the nation and law towards the community becomes mandatory. It reflects the subversion of letter and spirit of the law. In both the cases, the Court has played a better role than lawmakers who have fallen prey to sectional sentiments. Democracy should represent, accommodate and care for all sections and their sentiment but should never become a hostage to it. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Who wins when India fights over Hadiya and Padmavaat?

Love. The word carries so much worth for me. I am sure it does for you too. As a kid, as a woman, as a mother and as an Indian, the word love remained almost inextricably yet imperceptively linked to my existence. I loved my mother as a child, as a woman I fell in love with more than one man and married the one I loved the most, I love my son so much that I feel my heart would burst. Beyond these personal relationships, the feeling of love seeped in my work sphere too. I loved being a teacher, writer and mentor.&nbsp;

And, God knows I love my country. I do get goosebumps when I hear the national anthem though I hate to be so emotional.&nbsp;

But the word love does not come to me, anymore, in its purest and loveliest form. So much is going on in India in the name of love-the whole politics around it- that the word nowadays causes me anxiety, dismay and anger. When in love, one could give up everything, even one&#39;s life. But now with politicisation of love, it is not anymore a constructive emotion alone which inspired kindest of acts and most beautiful creative works worldwide. Associated with vengeance, love has become an instrument to impose one set of religious identity over others. Instead of acting as an antidote to hatred, love has now become the reason to kill.

This morning, news started pouring in on a Muslim man, Mohammed Afrazul, who has been hacked to death and then burnt for, allegedly, being in a relationship with a Hindu girl. The grotesque video of the heinous act is making its round in the social media. The media thinks that it could be a case of reprisal against inter-faith marriage.

Marriage customs have always been strictly defined in India. Religious norms, caste practices, economic logic are some of the cardinal factors determining who could marry whom. Even Bollywood picked up the theme to make innumerable movies, the most memorable being Mani Ratnam&#39;s Bombay which showed the challenges of interfaith marriage. Then there is Veer-Zara, Bobby, Julie, and Baji Rao Mastani.&nbsp;

While societies across the world have never been too welcoming about defying boundaries in a conjugal relationship, the violence and hatred that we witness in the commonest of people in India on matters of Hindu-Muslim marriage nowadays are unprecedented.&nbsp;

In a world torn by terrorism, Jihad has become the most hated and feared word. For the most unfortunate reason, the word Jihad has now been coupled with love to imply marriage with the intention of conversion. Allegedly Muslim right-wing organisations are working towards converting Hindu girls to Islam by encouraging Muslim boys to enter into a relationship with them. There has, however, been no evidence supporting the existence of love jihad in India though.

But the danger of half-baked ideas of cultural nationalism is it can very easily be twisted to create anxiety about the &#39;other&#39;. Culture, in most cases, comes to be interpreted as the religious culture. Anyone who does not fall within the ambit of majoritarian religious identity, therefore, will find it difficult to find an equal place within the scope of the nation-state. The tensed dynamics of majoritarian politics has often contributed to violence against the minorities. The minorities appear as not only different but dangerous-a threat to the purity of the cultural identity of the majority community.

India&#39;s national fabric is very fragile at the moment. If there is so little trust between the nation&#39;s constituent communities, no amount of national anthem singing in public spaces will ensure harmony. Personally, I feel that as a nation we will do better if we rely more on the strength of love as a bonding factor rather than stress on cultural insignias as the mark of distinctiveness from the &#39;other&#39;.

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

&nbsp;

The minorities appear as not only different but dangerous-a threat to the purity of the cultural identity of the majority community.

Love. The word carries so much worth for me. I am sure it does for you too. As a kid, as a woman, as a mother and as an Indian, the word love remained almost inextricably yet imperceptively linked to my existence. I loved my mother as a child, as a woman I fell in love with more than one man and married the one I loved the most, I love my son so much that I feel my heart would burst. Beyond these personal relationships, the feeling of love seeped in my work sphere too. I loved being a teacher, writer and mentor. And, God knows I love my country. I do get goosebumps when I hear the national anthem though I hate to be so emotional. But the word love does not come to me, anymore, in its purest and loveliest form. So much is going on in India in the name of love-the whole politics around it- that the word nowadays causes me anxiety, dismay and anger. When in love, one could give up everything, even one's life. But now with politicisation of love, it is not anymore a constructive emotion alone which inspired kindest of acts and most beautiful creative works worldwide. Associated with vengeance, love has become an instrument to impose one set of religious identity over others. Instead of acting as an antidote to hatred, love has now become the reason to kill. This morning, news started pouring in on a Muslim man, Mohammed Afrazul, who has been hacked to death and then burnt for, allegedly, being in a relationship with a Hindu girl. The grotesque video of the heinous act is making its round in the social media. The media thinks that it could be a case of reprisal against inter-faith marriage. Marriage customs have always been strictly defined in India. Religious norms, caste practices, economic logic are some of the cardinal factors determining who could marry whom. Even Bollywood picked up the theme to make innumerable movies, the most memorable being Mani Ratnam's Bombay which showed the challenges of interfaith marriage. Then there is Veer-Zara, Bobby, Julie, and Baji Rao Mastani. While societies across the world have never been too welcoming about defying boundaries in a conjugal relationship, the violence and hatred that we witness in the commonest of people in India on matters of Hindu-Muslim marriage nowadays are unprecedented. In a world torn by terrorism, Jihad has become the most hated and feared word. For the most unfortunate reason, the word Jihad has now been coupled with love to imply marriage with the intention of conversion. Allegedly Muslim right-wing organisations are working towards converting Hindu girls to Islam by encouraging Muslim boys to enter into a relationship with them. There has, however, been no evidence supporting the existence of love jihad in India though. But the danger of half-baked ideas of cultural nationalism is it can very easily be twisted to create anxiety about the 'other'. Culture, in most cases, comes to be interpreted as the religious culture. Anyone who does not fall within the ambit of majoritarian religious identity, therefore, will find it difficult to find an equal place within the scope of the nation-state. The tensed dynamics of majoritarian politics has often contributed to violence against the minorities. The minorities appear as not only different but dangerous-a threat to the purity of the cultural identity of the majority community. India's national fabric is very fragile at the moment. If there is so little trust between the nation's constituent communities, no amount of national anthem singing in public spaces will ensure harmony. Personally, I feel that as a nation we will do better if we rely more on the strength of love as a bonding factor rather than stress on cultural insignias as the mark of distinctiveness from the 'other'. (Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

Opinion: Why Muhammad has to die for love

cultural-nationalism

Cultural Nationalism, News on Cultural Nationalism, stories on Cultural Nationalism, articles on Cultural Nationalism, Cultural Nationalism stories at Wion, Cultural Nationalism news, Cultural Nationalism latest news