Suspension of MPs is Political Monotheism

‘Suspension of MPs is Political Monotheism, the Making of a Majoritarian State’

Neshat Quaiser from the Centre de Sciences Humaines (CSH Delhi) says the incumbent regime is trying to establish legitimacy of a majoritarian state. His views:

Deeply disturbing suspension of 146 MPs is just a surface manifestation which is otherwise reflection of a much deeper malady and requires a dispassionate discourse. Immediate cause may be to divert attention from the real or perceived near demolition of the myth of a seemingly invincible supremacist present ruling dispensation after the intrusion of the two youths even inside the Indian Parliament, unlike the 2001 Parliament attack. 

The conditions of the production of what is happening around relate to the Political Monotheism and the emergence of a designed politico-religiously propelled majoritarian state, unsure though from within, supported by the related social forces beneath the surface.

The ideology of the political monotheism and the newly emerging state, which is never neutral guided by the Constitutional ethos despite its claim to be so, acquire ontological centrality to explain the present India society and polity.

The idea of the political monotheism was first conceptualised during the Tahrir Square movement to outline the shift taking place within the Islamist thinking that I characterised as being based on the ideology of political monotheism. This led me to write an essay entitled “From Political Islam to Political Muslim: Questions of Citizenship and Pluralist Turn” first in 2015.  

The concept of the political monotheism is equally applicable to the ideology of Hindutva the mirror image of Islamism.  Political monotheism signifies epistemological absolutism of an exclusivist politico-religious-theological hegemony and domination to establish a religiously majoritarian unitary state. Mono-vocality constitutes its hegemonic foundational mechanism as opposed to dialogical processes. In order to shift the focus from the extremely undesirable everyday social existence of the majority of Shudra-Dalit disenfranchised population and the vulnerable high caste middle classes in a state of unstable and egregious socio-economic material conditions, Hindutva political monotheism, with its myriad manifestation, is propelled through brazenly masculine populist authoritarianism to legitimise and normalise the Hindutva ideological apparatuses, in order to instil in them a sense of belongingness to an otherwise antithetical unitary Hindu state. And to appeal the popular imagination of the majority and of the religiously dispersed Hindu population and to produce homogeneousness through explicit or implicit coercion in them, the project of Hindutva political monotheism employs the ideology of scapegoatism and emerges as the sole triumphal avenger of the injustices and oppression perpetrated on ‘Hindus’ by the foreign ‘invaders’ in the past which is responsible for the present plights of the ‘Hindus’ and the destruction of the Hindu Golden Past. 

A Hindutva propelled politically monotheistic majoritarian state, thus, by definition has the political project to ‘govern’ people and institutions for its own sustenance, continuation and survival. However, this all-powerful, seemingly invincible state is never sure of the logic of its own existence, as a result, it continuously must engage in such demonstrable acts – such as lynching of Muslims and enacting laws to suppress the voices of opposition – whereby it is seen as the ‘sole avenger’ not only to make the governed fall in line, but also assure itself of the legitimacy of the logic of its existence. Thus, the ideology of political monotheism and politically monotheistic state ultimately “petrify the true meanings of the subjugated free through the mechanism of choreographic occultatation” in order to produce a petrified post-colonial Hindutva subject.

Thus ‘governing’, controlling and gagging the media in all forms is also linked directly with the notion of governance of a politically monotheistic state, which is never neutral guided by the Constitutional ethos despite its claim to be so. Thus, controlling of media is all about the question of establishing legitimacy of what is not legitimate, as the state is not viewed as the redeemer of its people. And much of the corporatised media today, in one or another way, is aligned with the ruling establishment and the ideologies that support it.  However, there are media which would not like to fall in line. So, the state in fact thoroughly detests the dissenting, the questioning media.

Similarly, the politically monotheistic state intervention in the constitution of law and justice and “judicial choreographic occultation resulting in petrification of true meanings of life, existence and freedom” is palpable. 

In such a situation, in order to reclaim the seriously backsliding constitutional and civil democratic ethos robbing people of their right to be true citizens, a broadest possible non-dogmatic democratic alliance based on counter-intitutive praxis to counter the communal-feudal-capitalist technologies of domination alone is the only way out. This is necessary to assert that democracy cannot be reduced to electoral politics alone, so that creatively evolving constitutional and civil democracy could be reclaimed and politically monotheistic state’s technologies of domination could be answered.

The narrator has also taught in the Department of Sociology, Jamia Millia Islamia, Central University, Delhi

As told to Amit Sengupta

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

Iran Protests

Protests In Iran Must Guard Against A Civil War-Like Situation

Sheeba Aslam Fehmi, a Delhi-based writer and Islamic feminist, says women’s right to choose their clothing without coercion is the real challenge

The hijab row and the resulting anti-regime protests in Iran are symptomatic of an interesting fact. It not only tells us about the present Iran but also about other liberal democracies that daringly point out the majoritarianism of others, but never reflect on their own. From a progressive mindset, I am always against any coercion anywhere in this world.

I had opposed attacks on burqa in France also. At that time some clerics in India were also opposing it in the name of democracy. I told them that you do not have a moral right to oppose this because they never objected when they were forcefully being implemented in Iran and Saudi Arabia. We are the ones who have opposed both forms of coercion.

In India, if we look at the plight of women who come from the majoritarian section of society, they do not have any right to make decisions for themselves. They are being told to become a good wife and good daughter-in-law. A university in Gujarat is teaching them how to be good wives. Whom to marry, what to produce…? Everything is being dictated to them. This is the fallout of majoritarianism which is on the rise in the whole world. It is devoid of any moral responsibility and opposes any kind of progressive trend.

In almost all Muslim countries women are demanding to break free from the hijab. Saudi Arabia is changing and women are celebrating their freedom there. UAE has almost become European. The same is true with Bahrain, Oman, Malaysia and elsewhere. Nowhere are Muslim women seen demanding for a hijab.

ALSO READ: ‘Let A Woman Decide What To Wear Or Not’

But in India if someone posts a photo of one’s child in hijab on social media, people start celebrating it in the comments section. This is the sort of brainwashing where women are being told that an ideal woman should be like this. This is much more overt now. We cannot give a discount to this kind of ideological brainwashing when women in the Muslim world are demanding to break free.

The fundamental question here is cultural. Why Muslims of Kerala must resemble Arabs? Why can’t an Indian Muslim have one’s own identity? I was in a television debate where Asiya Andrabi said that she wants to bring the culture of Saudi Arabia to Kashmir. I countered her by asking that if a Kashmiri says he wanted to take his culture to Saudi Arab, will he not be persecuted there! You cannot interfere with culture. Culture evolves inside a specific geographical space. We need to differentiate between a culture and a regressive practice.

A distinctive feature of Iran that differentiates it from India is its geopolitics. It is disturbing to know that loads of arms are being seized in outer areas like Kurdistan and security forces from the Basij militia have been killed. This has resulted in the government creating a successful perception that protests are being aided by foreign elements, especially concerning Hillary Clinton’s statement about carpet bombing.

Read More Article : http://13.232.95.176/

Supporting an idea is one thing but we must be alert of the means because a situation of civil war is being unfolded there. We must also keep in mind that there is a written document from the Reagan and Bush era that says the US needs to pull down five Muslim states in the Middle East. Remember that only Iran is surviving to this day and the rest have been destroyed.

As told to Abhishek Srivastava