Minority Affairs Minister Najma Heptullah has become the latest BJP Minister to get involved in the 'Hindu identity' debate first endorsed by RSS chief, Mohan Bhagwat.

In an interview with the Hindustan Times newspaper, Heptullah, who has remained silent on the issue so far, said that the idea of Indians being 'Hindus' had 'evolved in history'.

“Anything beyond the Hindu Kush mountains and on this side of the Sindh river is Hind. In Persian, they call it Hindustani… where the people of India live. The word Hindu originally referred to the national identity of people who live in this land. I look at it very rationally. One should not forget history.”

This is not the first controversial comment Heptullah has made on Muslims. She also kicked up a hornets nest when she said that Muslims were not a minority, soon after her appointment in May.

Heptullah also echoed a comment first made by External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj, in which she said the Arab world referred to India as “al-Hind”. Swaraj had said, "Many illustrious families have surnames like 'al-Hindi', implying that 'Hindu' or 'Hindi' were not identities, confined to a particular religion".

As pointed out by Firstpost columnist Ajaz Ashraf however, the etymology of the word 'al-Hindi' and even 'Hind' in Arabic is not that simple. He says:

Etymology is a banana skin on which even the most knowledgeable can slip. When I requested the well-known UAE Arab poet Dr Shihab Ghanem, who was bestowed the Tagore Peace Prize in 2012, to elucidate upon Swaraj's claims, he said, "Probably Al-Hindi or Bin Hindi has some connection with India. Either their ancestors had Indian blood or lived in India or were connected with India. But each individual case has to be checked carefully."

But there are other meanings Hind or Hend possesses. Ghanem, for instance, said, "Hend or Hind is a common female name in the Arab world. It means 'one hundred camels.'" You just wonder whether Swaraj is aware of the lexical nuances of the word Hind as used in the Arab land.

The 'Hindu identity' debate, a long held belief by the RSS, was reignited by organiastion chief Mohan Bhagwat earlier this month when he said, "The cultural identity of all Indians is Hindutva and the present inhabitants of the country are descendants of this great culture. If inhabitants of England are English, Germany are Germans and USA are Americans then why all inhabitants of Hindustan are not known as Hindus."

Apart from Swaraj, other members and allies of the BJP have defended Bhagwat's remarks with Union Minister and senior BJP leader M Venkaiah Naidu saying that "Hindu is a not a religious concept. Hindu is a cultural identity."

Naidu went on to say, "If Hindu is a religion, then why this (The) Hindu newspaper?.. If Hindu is a religion, then why Hindustan Times newspaper and why Hindi 'akhbar' Hindustan? And why Hindustan Machine Tools (HMT)? then why Hindustan Aeronautics Limited ? then why Hindustan Shipyard? I can give 125 examples like this. These are not the names given by (Prime Minister) Narendra Modi or Venkaiah Naidu or somebody. This has been there in our traditions. On August 15, what do you say ?'Jai Hind'; does it mean to say Hinduon ko Jai aur bakio ko nahi. Aisa hai kya"?

Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray had also defended Bhagwat's statement saying, "Whatever Mohan Bhagwat said is true. Balasaheb used to say the same thing... what is wrong with Bhagwat's statement?"

However as Ashraf pointed out, "Why is it that Article 1 of the Indian Constitution says, "India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States"? Why doesn’t the word Hindustan find a mention in the Indian Constitution? Isn't it intellectually vacuous to consider religion and culture as two mutually exclusive realms?"

This sentiment was echoed by Congress leader Manish Tewari who said, "It would be better if Najma Heptullah read India's constitution. A citizen of India is an Indian, not a Hindu."

Although the 'Hindu identity' debate has been largely treated as a 'side debate' of sorts - a throwaway argument that politicians keep alluding to, and never coming up for discussion in an official capacity - it has understandably caused some jitters among India's Muslim community, many of whom are still not altogether convinced of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's secular credentials. And the fact that he has not raised a voice in this debate, and silently allowed his senior Ministers to back the RSS, is not going to win their confidence.

The biggest issue with this entire debate, as pointed out by Ashraf is that identity also entails a self-definition. To ask minorities to call themselves Hindu, to impose a definition on them, is nothing other than cultural, lexical subjugation:

"This is also precisely why Swaraj’s and Naidu’s formulations are bereft of innocence. If the word Hindu, in their opinion, has only a cultural, not religious resonance, then why go around articulating it publicly? If all Indians, regardless of their religions, are influenced by Hindu culture, then why go around screaming it?"

Which is why Heptullah's decision to jump into this debate is all the more ominous.

When prominent community leaders like Heptullah accept the RSS verdict, others who reject it will be further marginalised.

The RSS will be able to point to leaders like Heptullah and accuse other Muslims, as also Christians, of not accepting the common heritage of this country, of not being true to their culture and, impliedly, their country. We are looking down a slippery slope, and Heptullah, whatever her reasons for agreeing with the RSS, is only hastening the slide.