‘We will not permit Sanskrit hegemony’, thundered Congman Peter Alphonse from the precincts of St. Andrew’s Church, the venue of the anti-ordinance protest a few days back. But in the secular din that emanated from that very religious premises and the subsequent furore over MK’s ‘thiruda thiruda’ revelation on Hindus, Peter’s Sanskrit-phobia virtually passed unnoticed, barring a casual mention in some newspapers.
Now, Sanskrit, as we all know, is no longer in vogue as a spoken language. Its only relevance today is by virtue of it being the language of the vedas and the Hindu scriptures. It is the sacred tongue of the Hindu religion which values the antiquity of the language as much as it does its literature for posterity. Now, would it not be logical to conclude that any attack on Sanskrit was meant to be an attack on Hinduism which is the real target? Frankly, one need not take so much pain to deduce the fact when Peter Alphonse’s hatred for Hinduism was flashing like a neon sign, yet one has to go through the motions of logic to be doubly convincing, because the adjudicators are all secularists, be they in politics or media.
Now, how can a Peter call for ending Sanskrit hegemony, assuming it exists? And when this Peter targetted Sanskrit which is wholly Hindu and nothing but Hindu, was he behaving like a secularist or like a Christian? Answers to these questions are critical to understand the nature of the discourse on secularism that is currently underway in the country. In the current lopsided secular milieu, a Peter, despite being a Christian enjoys a perfect locus standi not only to talk about Sanskrit and by corollary, Hinduism, but to hate it and then unabashedly display his hatred, without even a pang of guilt that his Hindu friends’ sentiments would be hurt. It is deemed his democratic right as a citizen of this secular country to be so crudely discourteous to other religionists.
This is so despite the fact that barring a few, a good part of the majority community treat the religion of Peter with respect, reverence and unfailing tolerance and without expectations of reciprocity which in any case has never been forthcoming. But even this could be spared considering that he being a Christian ingrained with such convictions as true religion etc. etc., any other religion or even its language, should genetically be anathema to him.
But what is apalling is that he seeks to display his Hindu-hatred as a natural secular instinct that is perfectly in sync with ‘public opinion’, as well as in tune with religious freedom ‘as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution’. When Peters talk, they talk as secularists, not Christians! Such a verbal excess, he was sure, would never raise the hackles of the secular media too and in fact, would have earned him a well deserved headline, if only the redoubtable Kalaingar had not stolen the limelight a la Hindu thieves. And true to his unerring faith in the secular fabric of the gathering, as also the nation, Peter has got away with his surrogate-Hindu bashing, without as much as a scratch. One must congratulate him for his confidence and cheek. But more importantly, one must commend this society and polity for emboldening such Peters!
But imagine what would have happened if a Hindu politician, not necessarily a Hindutva politician, happens to say similar things about the hegemony of Christianity or the Bible? Would he have been given the benefit of doubt as a genuine secularist who just slipped up on his routine script? Would the secular class and media be so broadminded or even naive, as to take it as a well-intentioned criticism, even if it was not, just as Peter’s was not? Would the Hindu orator be spared by his secular as well as Christian friends on the podium and elsewhere for just displaying a democratic right? My foot! The ‘assault’ on Christianity would have then become a national obsession.
The speaker would have been condemned outright, even if he was a person of proven secular credentials, a quality that the Peters actually lack. The reputation of the Hindu speaker would have been irrelevant, ironically, just as the Peter’s rabidity was ignored. And much unlike in Peter’s case where his outburst was applauded, the orchestrated outrage would have gone beyond what was said and would have promptly zeroed in on the speaker’s religion. The Hindu speaker’s religion would have been deemed as the only provocation for such a talk and the debate would have turned into a frenzy of indignation at the ‘blatant display of oppressive majoritarianism’. A Pazhani or a Parthasarathy would have been in the pits for their ‘indiscreet communalism’. But not a soul will stir when a Christian Peter lambasts Sanskrit ‘hegemony’ without batting an eyelid!
Hindu scriptures ? of course, in that ‘oppressive’ Sanskrit that has so incensed the secular Peters – seek to explain the concept of maya by a simple allegory of a rope that is mistook as a snake during twilight. While the rope does not seem like a rope, the mistake is accentuated by it appearing like a snake. In short, maya is a situation where the real is hidden and something which is false seems like real, a twin error colluding to conjure up a grand deception.
The secular scenario is somewhat similar but more potent. The truly secular and tolerant Hindus are pictured communal, much like the fate of the innocuous rope. And there is worse in store. The maya of the secular world goes to the other extreme and takes a sinister hue with the snake being purveyed and paraded as a rope! Call it The Secular maya whence not only tolerant ropes are shredded to bits but communal snakes are allowed to slither happily in our midst. And it is not even twilight but broad daylight.
Peter Alphonse’s tirade against Sanskrit is a direct and an uncouth display of an evil intent ? that of striking at the very roots of the Indian culture, and though he himself is a nonentity he is indicative of a larger mass of anti-Hindu opinion harboured by minorities and secularists. And we all know what sort of a hegemony is sought to be put up as an alternative to Sanskrit, read, Hindu, ‘hegemony’:
An all too familiar hegemony that would be perfectly fine with the Peters. The history of the world over centuries stands testimony to the destructive character of this hegemony that rides on proselytization and its purveyors. A Peter’s ‘secular’ invocations are only deceptions, a sugar coating that camouflages pure poison. Do we have the good sense to shed the secular maya and see reality or should we remain shrouded by it and kneel forever before the unholy marauders masquerading as holy secularists? To put it in popular parlance, should we keep robbing Pazhanis and Parthasarathys just to pay pernicious Peters and pampered Pauls?
e-mail the writer at [email protected]