The Case for Banning the VHP, Bajrang Dal and RSS

In the context of the prolonged and horrific violence in Gujarat, there have been numerous calls for the VHP and Bajrang Dal to be banned. For some people, evidently, the well-documented role of these organisations in planning, inciting and perpetrating systematic attacks on Muslims – destroying their livelihoods, driving them out of their homes, raping hundreds of women and girls, and murdering thousands of men, women, children and babies – seems an obvious reason for outlawing them.

Others, however, disagree. Even if we leave aside members and supporters of the VHP and Bajrang Dal, there are objections which can be summarised as follows: (1) Bans are undemocratic. (2) Who will ban them? Not this government! (3) It won’t work – they will go underground, or change their names. (4) Endorsing the use of a ban against them will make it easier for the government to ban organisations and harass individuals engaged in legitimate activities.

The Only Alternative to Global Terror

 

Father, Son and Holy War

My apologies to Anand Patwardhan, but I can’t resist the temptation to borrow the title of his film as an apt description of what is happening in the world right now (i.e. October 2001, the month after the terrorist attacks in the USA). Whether the father is Saudi billionnaire Mohammed bin Laden, with his close ties to the Saudi royal family, the son is his estranged offspring Osama, who is enraged every time he thinks of infidel American troops stationed on the holy soil of Saudi Arabia, and the holy war is the jihad which the latter has declared against America and Americans; or the father is George Bush Sr, who started it all with his war to defeat Saddam Hussein by gradually exterminating the people of Iraq, the son is George Jr., who has trouble opening his mouth without putting his foot in it, and the holy war is the crusade the latter has declared against, well, let us say vaguely specified enemies who happen to be Muslims – in both cases, the themes of religious communalism, militarism and machismo are inextricably intertwined. 

There is even an uncanny similarity in the ways that the two sons think, if we ignore the cowboy rhetoric of one (‘wanted - dead or alive’, ‘smoke 'em outa their holes’, etc.) and the pious expressions of the other (‘may God mete them the punishment they deserve’, etc.). Bush tells us, ‘either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists’ (statement of 20/9/01); Osama tells us the entire world is divided into ‘two regions – one of faith… and another of infidelity’ (statement of 7/10/01). In other words, they both want us to believe that the population of the world is divided into two camps, one headed by Bush, the other by bin Laden.