Why Mohan Bhagwat can't polarise Varanasi
The disillusionment of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) was more than apparent when Mohan Bhagwat held a meeting of the various stakeholders in Varanasi last week. He wanted to know why the BJP and the VHP leaders lagged behind the Congress in leading the October 5 protest of the sadhus against a ban on idol immersion in River Ganga.
The RSS Sarsanghchalak was of the view that the VHP and the BJP should never let any other party hijack any movement of sadhus. Sources claimed that Bhagwat rebuked the BJP for its failure and asked the VHP to replan its strategy to ensure that any protest of the sadhus in Varanasi in future was led by its leaders. He essentially wants to keep a hold on the holy city.
It is no secret that Varanasi is as important for the RSS as Ayodhya and Mathura. But Bhagwat needs to understand that Varanasi might not react the way Sangh's other laboratories (Ayodhya and Mathura) have done in past. It is the land of Goswami Tulsidas and Kabir, who were known for distancing themselves from any fanaticism. Even today, the ghats of river Ganga are full of Hindus and Muslims on any given day. The locals are easygoing and don't care about such things. This is the reason that despite saffronisation of the Banaras Hindu University, the RSS couldn't increase its shakhas in this city.
It is not that Varanasi has not witnessed communal clashes. In fact seven such incidents have taken place since the Babri Masjid was brought down. But Sandeep Pandya, a Gujarati who lives in Varanasi, says, "People from adjoining districts were imported by some political parties to create problem in Varanasi. Otherwise, local people are least interested in the RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat held a meeting with the BJP and VHP leaders recently to replan its strategy in Varanasi. Otherwise, local people are least interested in such divisive activities."
"The river banks here have a certain Sufi vibe", Pandya said. In fact every second person in Varanasi can be heard indicating towards its secular past during which the two poets created certain kind of literature which were still growing with each passing day.
Tulsidas' Ramcharitmanas is considered a saviour of Hindu religion. Yet, there were Brahmins who didn't let him sit in peace at Assi Ghat because they believed he was undermining Sanskrit and writing in Awadhi, the language of the weavers. It was in this frustration that Tulsi wrote Kavitavali:
- Dhoot Kahau, Awadhoot Kahau, Rajput Kahau, Julaha Kahau Kou
- Kahu Ki Beti Saun Beta Na Vyahab, Kahu Ki Jaati Bigar Na Sou;
- Tulsi Sar Naam Gulam Hai Ramko, Jakau Rachai So Kahe Kachu Oau
- Mangi Ke Khaibo, Maseet Ko Soibo, Lebau Ko Eku Na Debau Ko Dou.
(They may call me a crook or a saint, a Rajput or a weaver. It is not that I have to marry my son with anybody's daughter. I am also not interfering into anybody's caste. Tulsi is a slave of Ram. You may call me by whatever adjective you like. I can beg for my food and sleep in a mosque. I neither have anything to take from anybody nor do I have anything to offer.)
A century before Tulsi, there was Kabir (1440-1518), a weaver-turned-spiritual poet. He had passed through the same ordeal in this ancient city, yet he stuck to his surreal secular credential. Kabir's Bijak shows his anger against communalism:
- Jau Pai Karta Baran Bicharai, Taun Jantai Tini Danri Kin Sarai.
- Je Tu Babhan, Babhani Jaya, Tau Aan Baat Hoi Kahe Na Aya.
- Je Tu Turuk, Turukini Jaya, Tau Bhitari Khatna Kyon Na Karaya.
(If the creator would have been concerned about caste, he should have mentioned it on your forehead. If you were a Brahmin, born to a Brahmin mother, then why you were not born in a special way. If you were a Muslim, born to a Muslim mother, then why you were not circumcised before your birth.)