As is only befitting of the exuberance of the world’s largest democracy, Indian politics throws up new words which are unlikely to be found in any linguistic dictionary. One such word is “saffronisation”. A foreign observer would be hard put to understand the plenitude of meaning compressed in this improvised word. But in India, the meaning of the word is more than clear, both to its votaries and opponents.
Saffron is the colour of identity of the Bharatiya Janata Party-Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the larger Sangh Parivar. Saffronisation is the systematic and deliberate attempt to imbue certain narratives and institutions with the specific ideology of the Sangh Parivar. In this pursuit, the saffronisation agenda has clear-cut priorities. Beyond the more obvious din of politics relating to elections and the economy, the strategists in the RSS work quietly to reorient three vital institutions: culture and the cultural establishment, academic discourse and in particular the narrative of history, and, placements in the bureaucracy, especially in the middle and lower rungs.
The first few months after the BJP came to power were disarmingly quiet, like the proverbial lull before the storm. Then in January 2015, the first institution to come under attack was the Censor Board. Leela Samson, the incumbent chairperson, resigned citing interference and coercion by the parent information and broadcasting ministry, and corruption of panel members appointed by it. Film producer Pahlaj Nihalani was appointed as the new chairman, along with a new panel of members.
It was not long before the film fraternity baulked at the new code of moral policing being advocated by the board. In a complete disjoint with modern idioms, and realistic cinematic depictions, the new board sought to impose a prescription of morality which was directly in congruence with that of the Sangh Parivar. Manifestations of this kind of morality have been in evidence in the marauding groups of the parivar that assault young couples in public places, dictate what women should wear, determine which religious texts children should study and what people should read, watch or eat. A delegation of leading film personalities, including Aamir Khan, Deepika Padukone, Shabana Azmi and Vidya Balan were compelled to appeal to Rajyavardhan Rathore, the information and broadcasting minister of state, but mostly to no avail.
The Lalit Kala Akademi, the apex institution for the visual arts, was the next to be assaulted. Dr Kalyan Chakraborty, the much respected chairman, who has a doctorate in art history from Harvard and much valued experience as an art administrator, was summarily dismissed and replaced by a “non-descript” but “reliable” bureaucrat authorised to exercise all powers of the general council, executive board and the finance committee of the Akademi for the next three years.
The National Museum was on target after this. R. Venu, an Indian Administrative Service officer appointed by the previous government who had brought in a new vitality and efficiency in reviving this languishing institution, was abruptly transferred. Again, an administrator of the culture ministry, with apparently no experience in this area, was appointed in replacement.
Similarly, the Crafts Museum, which had carved out a niche space for itself, was sought to be replaced by an ill-conceived Academy of Crafts. Alarmed at these developments, 131 leading artists, writers and intellectuals of the country, including people like Gulzar, Romila Thapar, Ashok Vajpayee, Krishna Sobti, Kedarnath Singh, Aditi Mangaldas, Jyotindra Jain, O.P. Jain, Atul and Anju Dodiya, Mrinalini and Mallika Sarabhai, Sanjana Kapoor and Arpita and Parmajit Singh signed a petition of protest which stated bluntly: “If these actions reveal a policy direction, it is alarming that autonomy, professionalism and stature of our national institutions are facing a severe assault of mediocrity, bureaucratic mindset and a narrow cultural vision. We condemn this trend most strongly and call upon the creative and thinking community of our country to join in protest against the mindless interference in our public institutional life of culture by an ill-advised and insensitive government.”
Ancient India has truly remarkable achievements, and these need to be recognised and studied. But many RSS ideologues believe that this is not enough. Ancient India, according to them, should be over-glorified to the point where all balance is lost between rational appreciation and fanatical overstatement. Mythology is conflated with fact, and imagination with science.
Thus, the RSS-oriented historians would have us believe that in ancient times Bharat had planes that made inter-continental flights and Ganesha was a beneficiary of advanced plastic surgery, while Kunti was the first example of artificial insemination techniques practiced today. In comparison with such “achievements”, the last millennium where the delicate tapestry of the Ganga-Jamuna tehzeeb of India evolved, was an unwarranted derogation. Such a narrative of history devalues the legitimate achievements of ancient India, and presents a distorted and jingoistic perspective of our civilisational ethos.
But with the appointment by the new government of little known historian Y.S. Rao as chairman of the reconstituted Indian Council of Historical Research, there are already indications that such deliberately distorted and divisive renderings of history are likely to be reinforced. Reportedly, Mr Rao and other new nominees to the ICHR have all had an affiliation to the RSS’ Akhil Bharatiya Itihaas Sankalan Yojana.
The bureaucracy is a soft target for the saffronisation agenda. Below the surface of more volatile issues, placements of people close to the Sangh ideology goes on quietly and relentlessly. Even aides to ministers are screened for their loyalty. Others are co-opted over a period of time. The aim is to have a bureaucratic subset attuned to the ideology of the RSS over a long-term period.
The problem with saffronisation is that it has a very narrow vision, completely out of sync with the plural celebration of India. As more institutions are given a saffron hue, constricting ideology trumps competence and the space for dialogue and dissent narrows. Such a development is far more insidious and dangerous than the political slanging matches that catch the headlines.
Author and ex-diplomat Pavan K. Varma is a Rajya Sabha member
