Taking on the pseudo patriot

One looks to policemen, good policemen that is, for action. One usually expects a policeman to restore order through decisive physical acts or manoeuvres rather than with abstract ideas. Which is why it was refreshing the other day to find one of the country’s best known former policemen, Julio Rebeiro, come up with a strategic move that revolved not around techniques of controlling mobs or diffusing tensions — though his past experience and his involvement in Mumbai’s mohallah committee scheme should give him an expertise on the subject — but one that revolved entirely around terminology.

Addressing a gathering of businessmen in Mumbai on the recent events in Gujarat, which he identified as ‘‘a massacre not riots’’ he revealed that he had coined a new term for the saffron brigade: ‘‘pseudo patriots’’. The attack at Godhra evoked horror and condemnation. But events since then have pointed to a deliberate planned and relentless campaign against the minority community in Gujarat. For several of us watching with horror the unfolding of this violent campaign, there has been a sense of helplessness over many things: the collapse of institutions, the apparent complicity of agencies meant to protect lives, the unapologetic brutality that has surfaced. But, as much as anything else, there has been a feeling of widespread consternation over how a groundswell of public opinion could have been created to permit and justify such actions, if not actually perpetrate them.

There is a realisation that it is this tacit, at times open, acceptance that has given violent criminals the cover of respectability and the impetus to act freely. Yet there is a feeling of inadequacy amongst many; of not having the right words or the right approach, of being unable to counter the hatred and palpably false propaganda spread by the proponents of a violent Hindutva ideology.

How have things come to this pass? The reasons may be many but one is certainly the tricky war of words that has been played out over time. The peddlers of religious disharmony have had the advantage of being highly motivated and of attacking first managing, in this way to take their critics by surprise and putting them on the defensive. Over the last two decades Hindutvawadis have used all the tools of propaganda — disinformation, half truths, distortion, double talk, effectively to convince and win over some and to surprise, confuse and bewilder those who would challenge their ideology.

And now, in the latest round of the ongoing battle, it is a campaign of vilification they have clearly embarked upon. The recent physical and verbal attacks on journalists is one part of the strategy; the other is to tar those who speak against sectarian conflict and for communal harmony with the taint of that meaningless term ‘‘pseudo secularists’’. How does one respond to the term? It is like responding to the question: Have you stopped beating your wife? Confirm it or deny it, you are guilty.

In his direct way the supercop, however, has suggested a new and effective solution: the way to deflect a surprise ambush may well be to turn the attacker’s ammunition on himself. And speaking of ammunition — of the many words that have passed into saffronspeak none have been as effective as the word ‘‘pseudo’’. Pseudo defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as ‘‘false, seeming, professed but not really’’ has become almost a form of abuse in the hands of the Hindutvawadis.

But now, if one was to point a finger back at the accusers — and the recent violence in Gujarat offers sufficient examples for the task — one could do well to ask is it patriotism or pseudo patriotism to act in a way that divides Indians, runs up huge economic losses and hurts India’s image externally? Is it control or pseudo control of a situation in which violence continues unstoppably? Is it governance or pseudo governance to punish policemen who acted in line with their duty? Is it justice or pseudo justice to apply laws selectively or to offer different scales of compensation on the basis of community? Is it a defence or a pseudo defence to claim that since there were riots during Congress rule there is nothing wrong with the present? And, above all, is it religion or a pseudo religion that permits even encourages rape, arson and the murder of men, women and children in its name?

The Bangalore-based playwright, Mahesh Dattani, in a recent article bemoaned the takeover of the symbols of his religion, by proponents of Hindutva; many like him have expressed the resolve to reclaim them. Perhaps it is time also to reclaim other things, like the word ‘‘pseudo’’ and apply it where it truly belongs.

Earlier Columns