What Yogi Adityanath, Hindutva and porn industry have in common

In the ensuing bedlam post-Uttar Pradesh elections and the anointment of Yogi Adityanath as the chief minister, the country has been gripped between condemning the politics of hatred, on the one hand, and the celebration of Hindutva victory on the other.

The past few days has seen a pitched discourse between the two sides — from the death of secularism and the ushering of a fascist Hindutva state, to pseudo-secularism and the duplicity of secularism practiced so far by political parties; the deplorable vote bank politics of casteism, minorityism, majoritarianism and its deadly consequences on the electorate.

Then there is the cry over the isolation of Muslims and the ghettoisation of the community, which is slapped back with accusations of fear-mongering on their anxieties and terrors; apart from attempts to whitewash the Yogi’s past of communal campaigns and incitement of communal riots, by insisting that the new chief minister has not just won every parliamentary election (he’s a straight five-time MP), but that he should be judged in his new avatar as chief minister.

Now, all this may sound pretty peachy in the new moral Hindutva universe, where the once fringe, extremist ideals of resentment, grudges and rage against the Muslims, secularists, liberals etc are seen as the new normal. But is the other side only about sly secularism, woolly-headed nationalism and futile egalitarianism?

To help unravel the truth for the confounded, Constitution-abiding citizen, perhaps the answer lies in the mainstreaming of pornography and its effects on people?

Now wait, no one is comparing Hindutva to pornography, but what if we use the same tools and questions — that we do to come to grips with pornography — while tackling CM Yogi Adityanath? Here's how:

Freedom or suspension

Both RSS-BJP talking heads and progressive liberals have used the freedom of speech and individual rights to say Yogi Adityanath and his Hindu Yuva Vahini have every right to exist as long as they abide by the rule of law. It is similar to the argument in allowing the porn industry that if women are participating on their own free will — that is if they are not trafficked or forced into the industry — it is okay and must be acceptable.

But just as the lucrative porn industry has exploded because of its acceptability with extreme forms of exploitation and degradation of women and children, Adityanath and the Hindu Vahini soldiers too have raised and spread their campaign of hate with even more venom and brutality as his own election affidavit reveals.

Adityanath’s crimes include rioting, defiling places of worship, attempt to murder, inciting violence with his vitriolic speeches and utterances, even as lax and indulgent non-BJP state governments in the past 15 years, have let him off the hook.

Ask yourself then — if violence and degradation in the porn industry is not acceptable, can violence of hate in politics be?

Domination and submission

Opinion is increasingly veering towards the fact that the whirring images of women obediently submitting to every fantasy in the porn industry on the internet and videos has not just increased the intimidation and humiliation of women today, but has even changed the idea of masculinity — of domination and abuse.

Similarly, the constant accusation and attack on poor, bedraggled Muslims for the poverty, docility, defeatism and passivity of the “once grand Hindu civilisation” has provoked his army of Hindu Yuva Vahini soldiers to not just fool themselves about a manly, brave, virile Hindu past, but to also use that frustration to heap abuse and violence on the Muslim "other".

Adityanath’s bile has ranged from accusing Muslims for "love jihad" to make India into a Muslim country, to exhorting his followers to have at least four children to protect Hinduism, among other gems. Is it any wonder that such speeches have created enemy lines and push how Muslims are treated today?

If you are against humiliation and abuse in pornography, shouldn't it be boycotted in political speeches too?

Censorship and violence

In Gail Dines's documentary Pornland, she says it's when pornographers repackage and retail sexuality as violence, that it threatens social order. But if it is about sensuality, pleasure and discovery, there is no need for censorship at all.

Similarly, if Adityanath and the Hindutva brigade believe there is appeasement and placation of one community at the cost of another, it would be justified if they raised it in public platforms. But to package such grievances as hatred, enmity, backed by dodgy history and fake news, is to invite condemnation and a stink.

Justify and crucify

In Robert Jensen's book, Getting Off: Pornography and the End Of Masculinity, he addresses in detail the arguments that justify porn, but how it's mostly about men's cruelty to women and the pleasure they take in that cruelty.

Jensen has a question: If pornography is increasingly cruel and degrading, why is it more commonplace rather than being marginalised? Because it's in the presumption that society routinely rejects degradation and violence — which does not seem to be necessarily true today.

So, what kind of a utopian Hindu rashtra does Adityanath and his cohorts want for the country today?

As the votaries of the Hindu code for purity have underlined, it's about submissive minorities, virtuous womanhood, vegetarianism, etc. 

If you can reject porn for its degradation, why not "Hindu rashtra" for treating some people as second-class citizens?

Also read: Adityanath as UP CM: Some people can't digest Hindutva won, secularism lost