By Johann Ratnaiya

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is in the middle of a controversy once again. On Monday, MP Vinay Katiyar said, “Call it Taj Mahotsav or Tej Mahotsav both are the same things. There is not much difference between Taj and Tej. Our Tej Mandir has been turned into a cremation ground by Aurangzeb. Taj Mahal will be converted into Tej Mandir soon.” While his opinions may be misinformed at best, this is only a symptom of a more deep-seated problem in the party.

Diversity at stake

Religious tribalism has been festering for as long as anyone can remember. However, in recent times, radical Hinduism has been endowed with a name and identity in the public figure of Yogi Adityanath. He echoes the same sentiments as the radical fringe in Hinduism. The latest of his controversies is the UP-government’s proposal to start the Taj Mahotsav with a dance drama portraying the life of Lord Ram. This has little to no relevance to the celebration of Mughal arts and culture. The story of Lord Ram does not even offer an aesthetic parallel in the retelling of Mughal folklore.

Taj Mahotsav is a festive occasion for people from all over India and abroad to indulge in the lush revelry that celebrates our cultural heritage. It takes place at Shilpgram in Agra. Apart from being adorned by modern folk artists, musicians, and dramatists, it is also a celebration of the past. It is a nostalgic recollection of how India’s lovely social tapestry was woven.

The festival lasts for 10 days. The grand procession of decked-up elephants and camels is a real treat for the eyes. Handicrafts, antiques and other kinds of art are on display. However, with the introduction of the ‘Ram Natika’, this is an active move away from preserving the tradition as it was done in the past. Through the admission of elements that do not depict the Mughal Era, the government has paved the way for future inclusions that may portray more controversial topics.

Is there a hidden agenda?

At this point, the data is rather inconclusive on what the real plans for the future of this event are. The BJP has not responded with uniformity to the flak that it has drawn for its alleged ‘saffronisation’ of the event. The Deputy Director of the Uttar Pradesh Tourism Department, Dinesh Kumar, denies any role of the government in deciding the event’s theme or influencing its proceedings.

“This year, ideas on themes were invited from the people of the city. The committee had received some 180-185 theme ideas from which the selection committee chose the ‘Dharohar’ theme. The branding of the event this year is based on the same theme. Cultural programmes to be organised at the festival too will be based on that.”

However, what seems like an open-and-shut case of planning for a cultural event is now plagued by controversy following comments about the event from several of the BJP’s rank and file. While responding to allegations that the event is being politicised, BJP leader Vijay Shivhare painted himself into a corner: “I want to ask Opposition leaders, aren’t they Hindu? Don’t they take Lord Ram’s name when the wake-up? What better way to start a programme than by taking Lord Ram’s name?”

Why must a secular nation invoke any religion, leave alone Hinduism, in an event that is celebrating neither? This is a serious conundrum. The BJP has offered no hope that this controversy will pass. Therefore it is foolish to presume that the ‘Ram Nataik’ is really indifferent to religious motives, as the party still claims.

A time for interfaith dialogue

India has been a home to most of the major world religions for a long time. People have coexisted, worked together, and even fought side by side while worshipping in different ways. A befitting response to any kind of polarisation along religious lines would be to extol the virtue of faiths that are not your own. This is only possible through interfaith dialogue. The social fabric of this nation can only be preserved if we put social harmony over communal advantage and decide to look at our communal problems from differing standpoints.

The standpoint of the dominant group is the first we must consider. This group exercises a great deal of power over the others in the country’s social hierarchy. The members of the group possess a common identity and set of principles. In India, Hindus occupy the space at the top of this social pyramid because of their sheer number. This group wishes to impose their vision for India on those that are further down the social order. This is not always a bad thing. For example, different religious majorities in Europe tend to do the same and have build stable nations while doing so.

Minority do not have the same strength in numbers. Muslims and Christians are part of a long of list of religious minorities in India. They also wish for India to be governed by their respective religious orthodoxies. This is easily demonstrated in the kind of activism that adherents of these religions engage in. Therefore, we cannot pretend that it is always the other guy who is at fault.

Everyone must work to end intolerance

We need to put aside petty religious differences including but not limited to rituals and niche observances that do not represent the whole community. The only way forward is through interfaith dialogue about common principles that do not compromise religious liberties. Freedom of expression is best preserved through the diversity of opinions. If we use our shared platforms for open dialogue as places for mudslinging, the nation as a whole can never progress. Besides, our only other option is to allow society to devolve into a colossal wreck of competing interests. Our social canvas can only be preserved by Indians who are able to disagree with each other amiably.

Featured Image Source: Wikimedia Commons

Stay updated with all the insights.

Navigate news, 1 email day.

Subscribe to Qrius