Vinod Kumar
On August 8, 2023, front page news in the Times of India reported the violence that recently broke out during communal riots in Haryana. On a usual day, I prefer not to take sides based on what I read because the representation of facts is often minced in the news. However, the article reported a certain slogan, “samaan bhai se kharide, bhaijaan se nahi”, that rioters used to ostracise the Muslim community in Nuh, one of the areas affected by the communal tension. The slogan jolted me to a pause because the message was intense despite its subtle language. Surely, I was impressed by the creativity of the writers, but I was also deeply disheartened. I think the emotion I experienced was more than mere disappointment, it was also rage and shock. I was angry that such creative energies were employed to destroy peace and to spew hatred in the country (I want to write ‘my’ country, but I do not why I am unable to bring myself to write it. Perhaps, it is a thought for another day).
To me, the use of ‘bhaijaan’ and ‘bhai’ in such proximity conveyed a message of erstwhile, and maybe I should not shy away from saying extant, friendship and harmony between communities in India. It symbolised an integration of two cultures, Muslims and Hindus, that should not be told apart for economic ostracism.
I mean what were the rioters thinking coming up with a slogan like that? Should I commend their ingenuity or marvel at their ignorance? Couldn’t they see that the very language they used to create a divide between the two communities also spoke volubly of the harmony between them? Did they fail to notice that bhai and bhaijaan coproduce one another, that one is codependent on the other to be meaningful? Would it be romantic to argue that bhaijaan inflects the meaning of the term bhai to another endearing level? ‘Jaan’, an expression that signifies love, affection, and closeness to one’s heart, when used with bhai, a term for formal and informal kinship ties in India, produces an idea of harmony that is culturally and socially symbiotic. Are not bhaijaan and bhai coterminous symbolising a synthesis and history of two cultures? And if the two terms, without so much as the blink of an eye, convey so much togetherness, synchrony, and symptomatic association, how can anyone in their right mind come up with the idea of dividing them?
Surely, history may tell us otherwise; it may speak of confusion and opposition, of conflicts and clashes between bhai and bhaijaan, but it will also tell us about their coherence and confluence. It is a matter of one’s optic, priorities, and position, or isn’t it? And, it should not fall far from anyone’s line of vision that these two cultures and communities, no matter what their history and origin and whether they fall neatly into one’s definition of Indian (I have honourable V.D. Savarkar’s definition of Indian in mind here), are coalesced with each other. They may collide and have friction, but all that is part and parcel of coexisting and making a nation like India a whole.
Just as the togetherness of jaan with bhai multiplies love and affection in the term bhai, so does the Sangam of two cultures waxes the beauty and uniqueness of Indian culture. Telling them apart is an exercise in cutting down one’s strengths and limbs. And I am surprised that the explorers of the slogan could not fathom this part of their message. Or, perhaps I should not be so surprised after all!!
~~~
