Row over firecrackers: Hindutva must rise above majoritarian posturing
In Short
If it is true that Muslim festivals cause environmental damage, efforts should be made to stop or check that; policy and political response should not be to tolerate pollution by Diwali or Hindu pilgrimage just because Bakrid hurts the environment.
Share :
Row over firecrackers: Hindutva must rise above majoritarian posturing
The Row over firecrackers: Hindutva must rise above majoritarian posturingBombay High Court’s strong displeasure with actress Dia Mirza’s video for an eco-friendly, firecracker-free Diwali should drill some sense into the heads of Hindutva voters. She appeared in an awareness video for the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, urging people not to burst firecrackers on public roads. There is nothing exceptional about such messaging; film stars, top cricketers, and other celebrities do it all the time for various causes, ranging from environment to social. But Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and Mumbai mayor Ritu Tawde, claiming that Mirza has “always taken an anti-Hindu and anti-government stand,” opposed her. Maharashtra minister Nitesh Rane held a similar opinion: “Dia Mirza has tweeted about Diwali, but she never tweets or offers such advice during Eid, Muharram, or Bakrid. They only talk about an environment-friendly Holi or Diwali. They should also speak about an environment-friendly Ramzan and Bakrid. People like her are against the Sanatan Hindu religion. I will discuss this issue with the Chief Minister seeking to ensure such things are prevented in the future.”
If it is true that Muslim festivals cause environmental damage, efforts should be made to stop or check that; policy and political response should not be to tolerate pollution by Diwali or Hindu pilgrimage just because Bakrid hurts the environment. Two wrongsdon’t make a right; politicians should fight and not tolerate anything wrong. It was not surprising that the bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale was angered by the “petty mindset” of certain persons, especially those who are representatives of the common man. “We have not seen any politician or any person who made remarks yesterday put up videos spreading awareness. We are a secular country. We are really hurt by this. The issue pertains to the environment and every person, irrespective of their religion and caste, is breathing the same air,” it rightly said. The Hindutva brigade is mistaken if it believes that sanctimoniousness can be used to fill the governance deficit. Religion, cultural identity, and civilisational pride cannot be substitutes for competent administration, just as the invocation of Hindu sentiments cannot absolve those in power of their responsibility to address pressing civic concerns.
Indeed, the tendency to view every criticism of a Hindu religious practice as an attack on Hinduism betrays an intellectual insecurity that does little credit to a civilisation as old and self-assured as ours. A confident Hindu society should have no difficulty distinguishing between an attack on its faith and a perfectly legitimate appeal for civic responsibility. More importantly, those who claim to champion Hindu interests must understand that their conduct is judged not by the stridency of their rhetoric but by their contribution to society. What purpose does it serve to denounce an environmental awareness campaign as anti-Hindu while doing little to tackle the pollution that afflicts millions of people? The irony is particularly stark when elected representatives seek to communalise it and intimidate those who raise it. Such politics may generate momentary applause from partisan constituencies, but it neither improves air quality nor strengthens Hinduism. On the contrary, it reduces a rich religious and philosophical tradition to a political instrument, making its defence indistinguishable from the defence of partisan interests. Hindutva’s credibility will hinge on its abilityto rise above this petty majoritarian posturing.
