28 SOCIAL SCIENTIST
supposedly speaks? Perhaps it would have breathed fresh life into the myth of the indivisibility of resurgent Hinduism, thereby applying a ritual balm on the inequities that the vast majority in the country live under. Or perhaps it would have only succeeded in exposing itself, in betraying the fact that its keenness to seek restitution for historical wrongs is not tempered by any quality of introspection, or by a willingness to acknowledge the fatal flaws that 'Hinduism* has itself inherited from history.
It is no coincidence that this most dangerous manifestation of 'Hindu* bigotry has come in the wake of the turmoil in the northern region over the Mandal Commission report on job reservations for the backward classes. 'Mandal' and 'Mandir' work at cross-purposes and tend persistently to undermine each other. The party of 'Hindu* revivalism—the Bharatiya Janata Party—had no choice but to relaunch 'Mandir' when it was threatened with a loss of political initiative on account of 'Mandal'. 'Mandir' as a metaphor seeks to bring the entirety of the undifferentiated 'Hindu' community within its ambience, keeping out only the Muslims, whose patriotism is allegedly suspect on account of their supposed extra-territorial loyalties. 'Mandal* cuts the ground from under this pretence, by bringing the deep divisions within the Hindu dharma into prominence, and demanding their redressal.
Within the terms of the 'nationalist' discourse that is today seeking dominance, 'Mandir' is synonymous with patriotism, while 'Mandal' is the metaphor for a variety of divisiveness. That is the message that emerged very clearly from the anti-reservation agitation that raged across large parts of northern India for two full months, before the Mandir-Masjid issue was catapulted back to centre-stage by the L.K. Advani rathyatra. Like the proponents of the Mandir, the opponents of Mandal too had their own homogenising view of the national character—just as the former tended to view Ram bhakti as the central ingredient of Indian nationalism, the latter were inclined to stipulate the denial of caste as the hallmark of the true patriot.
This version of 'Hinduism' as an internally undifferentiated entity is becoming a powerful ideological prop of a nation-state in crisis. Even parties of supposedly 'secular' inspiration have of late found it necessary to genuflect before the altar of indivisible Hinduism. The argument accepts that the internal solidarity of Hinduism has been disturbed on occasion, as during the 'Muslim invasions'. But the fundamental unity of Hindutva has always been rediscovered—most recently under the impetus of the nationalist movement and the nation-building effort. 'Minorityism' and 'pseudo-secularism* have been the only discordant notes in this grand symphony of national reconstruction.
By these criteria, both the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the denial of caste quotas serve a 'national* cause, since they are consistent