Hindu Mahasabha ‘Shoots’ Gandhi: Why Some Get Away & Others Don’t

Would a Muslim youth be given a free pass if he’d shot at a Gandhi effigy the way a Hindu Mahasabha leader did?

Image of Hindu Mahasabha flag and Gandhi used for representational purposes. The right-wing group recently ‘celebrated’ the death anniversary of Gandhi by re-enacting his assassination.

(Photo: Shruti Mathur / The Quint)

Free speech is the engine of a democracy. It engineers the rise of enlightened nations and enables individuals and groups to question irrelevant ideas, and challenge the orthodoxies of our minds. And, in the process, infuses new ideas that foster civility and citizenship in democracies.

In this sense, the re-enactment of Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination in Aligarh on Wednesday, 30 January by the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha could have been viewed as a democratic exercise of free speech and expression, but there are serious issues associated with such events that affect the functioning of the Indian democracy.

Hindu Mahasabha’s Re-Enactment of Gandhi’s Assassination

On 30 January, when the nation commemorated the 71st anniversary of Gandhi's assassination, Puja Shakun Pandey, the national secretary of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, used a pistol to shoot at an effigy of Gandhi. Her supporters distributed sweets, and garlanded Nathuram Godse, Gandhi’s assassin who was a member of Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha.

Gandhi’s assassination in 1948 was independent India’s “first terror attack” as described by Asaduddin Owaisi, the leader of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen.

In the Indian democracy, shooting an effigy of Gandhi, staging a play in praise of Nathuram Godse, or making a movie disgracing him – even writing a totally blasphemous book – should become the norm, if we want to see India emerge as a super power. However, the problem arises when the ruling parties and common Indians proffer different responses in such circumstances.

Whataboutery & Double Standards of Political Parties

Driven by whataboutery, we, the citizens, become partisan in our responses to such events. We condemn one set of ruffians and praise another set of louts, or stay silent on them. Political parties do the same. Since the police act under the orders of our politicised administrative system, the same set of rules do not apply to everyone. In 2012, the police in the then Congress-ruled Rajasthan did not allow controversial writer Salman Rushdie to address the Jaipur Literature Festival, even via video conference, due to a threat from a Muslim group – but most importantly, in order to not hurt Muslim sentiments.

However, when the Bharatiya Janata Party came to rule Rajasthan, the same police gave a free pass to cow vigilantes. This double-standard bedevils the functioning of democracy in India. Now that the BJP is in power, cow vigilantes and Hindutva groups like the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha have sensed that they can get away, because a like-minded party is in power. 

The BJP fosters a political climate in which such extremist groups are able to survive.

Hate Speech is Not the Same as Free Speech

Ashok Pandey, husband of Puja Shakun Pandey, justified the re-enactment of Gandhi's assassination saying, "We have trained our children to kill anyone who challenges the unity of our motherland… Our children will not be as naive as us, they will kill many more." Such comments do not encourage citizenship.

Ashok Pandey and his wife can be effectively prosecuted under the laws that protect children for such teachings. Such groups must not escape public censure. Hate speech is not synonymous with free speech.

Unfortunately, senior BJP leaders like Narendra Modi, Amit Shah and Yogi Adityanath do not condemn such incidents because it serves a political purpose.

Even if the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha is not part of the RSS and BJP, its viewpoint on Gandhi's assassin is shared across Hindutva groups. In December 2014, BJP lawmaker Sakshi Maharaj called Nathuram Godse a patriot, though he retracted it later. When Modi ruled Gujarat, he did nothing to develop Gandhi's birthplace in Porbandar, or Rajkot where Gandhi was schooled.

What if a Muslim Did What the Hindu Mahasabha Did to Gandhi’s Effigy?

The fact remains that members of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha are supporters of the BJP. Photographs of Puja Shakun Pandey can be seen on social media alongside senior BJP leaders like Union Minister Uma Bharti and Shivraj Singh Chouhan (when he was the chief minister of Madhya Pradesh). The two leaders, expectedly for electoral reasons, are seeking to dissociate themselves now from Pandey and her organisation.

What if a Muslim youth had done something similar to what Puja Shakun Pandey did? He would probably have been arrested and jailed without trial.

When Hindutva groups promote communal hatred, praise the assassin of Gandhi, or take law into their hands, TV news anchors turn mute and politicians dismiss them as harmless “fringe groups”. This is because there is a premium on the majority.

These organisations are NOT fringe groups. They are very much in our mainstream.

On the contrary, minorities are hounded. Akbaruddin Owaisi spent several weeks in jail for hateful speeches and seems to have learnt his lesson, while Yogi Adityanath became chief minister, because his hate speeches were politically useful for the ruling party. For now, the police in Aligarh have registered a case against Pandey and her supports. It remains to be seen what charges are pressed against them.

Hindu Extremist Organisations Thrive Under BJP Rule

Broadly speaking, Hindutva organisations got a pass during the Modi rule, because, they serve Hindutva's purpose. It is time to create a list of organisations that must be kept under close watch. Those that pose a long-term security threat to India must be classified as terror groups. At the least, the equal application of laws without communal prejudice should be ensured.

Unfortunately, India has entered an era when our youths are jailed for Facebook comments and journalists languish in prisons under the National Security Act. This must stop.

It will be also be erroneous to assume that only law enforcement can eradicate such problems. Such issues must be addressed by ordinary citizens who, irrespective of party affiliation, should shun political partisanship and offer principled arguments that strengthen our democracy.

(Tufail Ahmad, a former BBC journalist, is a senior fellow at the Middle East Media Research Institute, Washington DC. He tweets @tufailelif. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)