Jadeja sword is no match for Quickgun Murugans in social-media war

Now that the dust kicked up by a Jadeja from Gujarat has settled, we need to pay a considered revisit to the battlefield that social media has become. The episode is another reminder of how the toxicity has seeped in into the well-read, woke, liberal and mostly well-meaning layers of our society. The toxic atmosphere has robbed us of clarity as we jump to conclusions.

Ravindra Jadeja, confined to his home like the rest of us thanks to the lockdown, posted a video of himself wielding a sword and showing off some sword skills. He hashtagged the tweet with #rajputboy. That triggered a lot of us. Some called out his privilege, some others called it bigotry and one went ahead to hint Rajputs make spelling mistakes. The criticism, however, went beyond that of Jadeja to Rajputs as a community, and a lot of it were only about ridiculing a community for the wars they lost.

Let us get the privilege bit out first. Ravindra Jadeja's dad was a security guard employed with a private company, the likes of one you don't even acknowledge. His mom was a government hospital nurse. Ravindra Jadeja has climbed up the ladder on his own as he chased his passion that is cricket. Yes, yes, of course, being born in a Rajput family, however poor, is a privilege in a village or in the immediate neighbourhood (caste is reality, abominable but a real advantage in society at that level). But that's that and only there.

Once you are out, you are on your own. Nobody sees the imaginary chip on your shoulder. On the contrary, if you show off the chip, you get an offline taste of what Jadeja tasted online. Also, Ravindra played no role in being born a Jadeja and it didn't help him in the profession he chose. So much for that privilege.

Just another privileged soul flaunting his caste and sword on Twitter. No offense but the 'Hashtag Rajput boy' bit is funny and bigotry at the same time. https://t.co/YAhho41gn7

— Afreen Fatima (@AfreenFatima136) April 12, 2020

A “SWORD” MAY LOOSE IT’S SHINE,BUT WOULD NEVER DISOBEY IT’S MASTER #rajputboy pic.twitter.com/kKyKQ9vSWk

— Ravindrasinh jadeja (@imjadeja) April 12, 2020

Rajput Persian se haare, Moghal se haare, Khilji se haare, Maratha se haare, British se haare!Khali maidan mein talwar ghumana is different thing. https://t.co/YcEShbCwjp

— Elia Millia Islamia (@elia_official) April 13, 2020

The person who saw bigotry in the tweet because he flaunted his Rajput identity wears her identity on her head. There is nothing wrong with asserting your identity if that doesn't hurt anyone. Does the same rule not apply in the case of Jadeja? What does bigotry mean actually? Rajputs cut across three major religions of this region. People deny it like they are in denial of caste. But Rajputs exist among Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and even Christians (we all know one). The identity they prioritise is a matter of personal preference. For example, in Pakistan which is nearly all Muslim, the Rajputs identify as Rajputs, carry the surname, so do Gujjar and Jats. To each his own. In India too, there are Rajputs among Muslims who continue with Rajput traditions while being devout Muslims. The Tablighi Jamaat movement began to make Rajput, Gujjar and Jat Muslims drop their community traditions and dissolve into the community of umma.

That Rajputs ruled vast parts of the land is a millstone in post-Independence India (post privy purse for the royal families). But not all Rajputs were kings. Most of them did martial duties and were on the rolls of the kings like soldiers are and have been. If a Rajput calling himself a Rajput is bigotry, then is a Muslim calling himself Muslim bigotry too? Because Muslim kings ruled large parts of the land, for centuries. Nobody tires pointing out that Rajput royalty had marital ties with then Muslim royalty. Are we apportioning blame for identities and misdemeanours of the yore in 2020? Like we blame today's Muslims for crimes they didn't commit and like today's Muslims take credit for monuments they didn't build? The only thing common between them is that they practiced the same faith. Like Jadeja practises his community's practices.

That Rajputs lost many battles is true too. Probably because they would go to battles, to either win or lose or die in the process. They were small chieftains fighting empires. There was no one empire ruling India when they suffered their worst fate. When it came to valour, the enemy invaders acknowledged that. They did not fight, die, surrender for any affirmation from typerioters centuries later. Some of them got crushed and compromised, some of them were brave to the point of being stupid. Books are replete with stories of them going into battle knowing death was certain.

The TikTok generation learns history from memes and Bollywood clips.

Yes, the list of victors being offered on Twitter, on who defeated the Rajputs in battles is true. The thicker, voluminous versions of history can afford the details, the textbook ones cannot see the devil in the details, the obstinacy of some Rajput chiefs and the extraordinary courage of some others. Though all human, warts and all.

Ravindra Jadeja has little to do with any of that. He, of course, is not uncomfortable with his identity. It's human to have a sense of belonging. And people often resort to the past glory of their collective. We all say India was sone ki chiriya as if India ever was. Our naming convention forces many of us to live with the identity. Look around you. People are persecuted for their identity. People are proud of their identity and there are people who don't give a flying one about it.

I learned some martial arts as a child. Bards from Bundelkhand landed every year to sing Alha and collect tributes. Children were indoctrinated with this "Rajput jive 18 saal (a Rajput lives only till 18)" to have no fear of death. This line has been passed down generations because small armies that wouldn't survive the oncoming storm marched on to certain death muttering these lines, glorifying martyrdom.

Before I understood my immediate world and before education in caste consciousness, I heard stories of my clan who were never defeated in a battle. I grew up to understand that defeated they were, once, to the point of extinction after a terrifying battle at modern-day Firozabad. Not a man left standing. They still believe we were not defeated by anyone, before Mughals, by Mughals or the British because they never accepted Delhi's suzerainty and never paid tributes without a fight. The truth: they fought, got rogered and paid. Never without a fight is true and accepting suzerainty is subjective. You may have heard of Pyrrhic victories, my ancestors had a thing for Pyrrhic defeats. Different strokes for different folks. They boast about it. I am hardly conscious of it but can I shake off my identity? Easier said than done.

Here's an example. Those who leave organised religion are atheists. But atheists who were Muslim are known as and call themselves ex-Muslims. Because in spite of leaving Islam, their identity is Muslimish.

The thing about identity is that it triggers us. I just wrote a long rambling piece because a quote-tweet triggered it. I took some time to react. My immediate reaction would not have been any different from that of the Quickgun Murugans: CTFD! #RajputBoy

If there are typos in this piece, please understand that it may be my own failings and not that of my community as a Twitter user suggested. The same Twitter user would be rightfully horrified by the nutjobs blaming the entire Muslim community for the fault of a couple of Tablighi Jamaat members.

Also Read |The Saad Truth: Under attack, Tablighi Jamaat has more defenders than the Markaz imagined