Yogi Adityanath is not the first: How Hindutva politics has always used Ramayana to woo the marginalised
The UP CM’s statement has led to Dalits ‘staking claim’ over Hanuman temples. What lies ahead?
As the poll season throws up new controversies every day, even the popular and much adored deity, Hanuman, is in the centre of one now — with his ‘caste’ up for debate. The issue is gathering momentum on TV channels, print media and social networking sites, with many sadhus, politicians and Dalit activist groups participating in it.
The hullaballoo started with a statement by UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. At a poll rally in Rajasthan, Adityanath said Hanuman comes from “‘vanwasi’ (forest dwellers), ‘vanchit’ (deprived) and Dalit” lot of our society.
Through the statement, the BJP leader was trying to include Dalit communities in the fold of Hindutva politics. Adityanath, in fact, is not the first leader to come up with this claim. Before him, many important BJP and RSS leaders have reportedly written in Panchjanya, a RSS-sponsored weekly, that Hanuman, Sugriva, Jamvant — all characters from Ramayana and Ramcharitmanas — belong to ‘vanwasi’ and ‘vanchit’ communities.
As we know, in the Ramayana, Hanuman is described as the son of Pawan (god of wind). His mother’s name is mentioned as Anjani. He is not projected as the descendent of a Dalit anywhere in Ramayan Katha. The only canonically true part of the BJP leaders’ claim is that these monkey heroes and deities were ‘vanwasis’, i.e. firest dwellers.
Hanuman became very popular through the Ramcharitmanas, composed by Goswami Tulasi Das, and the Hanuman Chalisa (story and biography of Hanuman). In these texts, too, there is no mention of Hanuman being a Dalit, or being deprived.
It is indeed unfortunate that ahead of elections in a democracy, it is the ‘caste’ of gods and deities that is up for discussion. But of course, this has political motives.
Through such an interpretation, saffron ideologues want to give out the message that just as the forest-dwelling Vanars supported Lord Ram in his fight against Ravana, the marginalised — Dalits and tribals — should join the Hindutva fold, which is fighting for the restoration of the values of ‘Ram Rajya’. Hindutva groups assert that it’s them who are fighting for the Ram janmbhoomi temple issue, and so Dalits and tribals should come together with them culturally and politically.
Among the leaders to write such articles in the Panchjanya was Bangaru Laxman, the only Dalit leader to become BJP president. These articles tried to reiterate that just as these monkey deities were Ram Bhakts, the marginalised sections of our society, as believers of Lord Ram, should support the politics and mobilisations fighting for the Ram janmbhoomi issue.
In one way, this is an attempt to reinterpret collective religious memories, and include Dalits and the other marginalised sections into the Hindutva political fold. It is also an effort to derive power from the symbol, myth and memories of Ram.
It is very difficult to assess the political impact of such campaigns during elections, but Adityanath’s statement may give an interesting turn to the social-political milieu of our society.
On December 1, a group of Dalit activists under the banner of Dalit Utthan Samiti gathered around various Hanuman temples in Lucknow, and “staked claim” on them. They said that since “Hanuman belongs to our caste, so all the Hanuman temples are ours.” The activists staged a dharna at the gate of the temples, and entered some peacefully to recite the Hanuman Chalisa.
Young Dalit leader and Bhim Army cheif Chandrashekhar, too, recently held a rally in western Uttar Pradesh’s Muzaffarnagar, and appealed to Dalits to “take over” all Hanuman temples and appoint Dalits as priests in them.
Thus, the UP CM’s claims seem to have backfired and created a situation of social anxiety and conflict in the society. While the electoral impact of such tactics is debatable, maybe, politicians need to assess the social impact of their statements before coming up with something like this.