At the beginning of The Identity Project: The Unmaking of a Democracy, Rahul Bhatia introduces the reader to an extremely amiable uncle who, almost inexplicably, begins to poison himself in 2014. Among many of the author’s relatives and acquaintances, anger is apparently suppressed. For decades, vitriolic expressions seemed to be found. The arguments, says Bhatia, will time-travel until they settle on the most suitable villain, the Muslim. Bhatia’s impulse to do the research that led to this rich study was, therefore, deeply intimate. Many of the characters in The Identity Project relate to a segment of their loved ones “who started going crazy a decade ago”.
This finding is likely to make many readers – this reviewer included – who have had to mute or exit family or school WhatsApp groups unable to tolerate the venom spewed against minorities. Family ties are strained in this other project.
The Identity Project blends history and ethnography to present a poignant story of contemporary India. Bhatia said that democracy is going haywire as people’s anger and the state’s discriminatory programs feed off each other. It is a story of citizenship laws, identity cards, neighbors turning against each other and the endless wait for justice for riot victims, in a system that shows little enthusiasm for catching the guilty. It is an exploration of the roots of outrage as well as a layered account of its contemporary manifestations. Bhatia connects the dots between the activities of the Arya Samaj, the speeches and donation drives of RSS and Hindu Mahasabha leaders like KB Hedgewar and BS Munje and the trauma of Partition violence to what is happening in the Babri Masjid demolition campaigns and branches. today
Most of these stories are familiar and, at times, the identity project may even seem to speak to the converted. But Bhatia’s honesty and her eagerness to understand the authors of this project in their various facets shine through in the book, which often leads the reader to stereotype-defying characters. For example former RSS volunteer, R. Not a teenager when he joined the organization, R’s decision was a kind of rebellion against a leftist father who saw nothing redeemable in the RSS. At the organization, he asked questions – uncomfortable questions about brutal military campaigns by Hindu and Buddhist rulers, the destruction of Vaishnava temples by Chola emperors, looting by Maratha warriors – and found an “imaginary line” drawn between himself and other children. .
R’s account is an interesting exhibition of branch etiquette. “His elders patiently answered his questions and now he was amazed at how accommodating they were to his questions, but also remembered that their answers did not satisfy his curiosity.” Although for R, “answers withered under persistent questions” it is not difficult to imagine that a less demanding negotiator would be impressed by the patience of branch members. When R, aged 13 or 14, protested his branch leader’s demand for donations to the Ram temple, instead suggesting a library as a fitting tribute to the deity, the organization did not treat him as a rebel. They started a fund drive for the library. After all, the RSS also laid great emphasis on information. R’s description of Sangha’s motivation and operational tool, its neural network – “it carries enough reason for 99.9 percent of the population, however when one challenges the limits of its knowledge, everything falls apart” – explains.
Also revealing is the account of another ex-member, Partha Banerjee, who left the RSS “far behind” and is still thinking about it. Once outside the organization, he wrote a critique that was so scathing that his father, Jitendra, whose loyalty to the RSS could bear no question, was heartbroken. Partha’s account, tinged with much political disapproval, shows Jitendra as a radical ideologue, and more. He wanted his son to participate in the “culture of the time”, while his “Islamophobia and racism” were also evident. Jitendra’s commitment to the RSS cost his wife and children. “We lived in poverty… but that was the RSS,” Parth told Bhatia.
The identity project should not be read as the construction of a kind of identity. It is also witness to dog resistance of many others. If there is disappointment in R’s acceptability, “we (those who disagree with the RSS’s path) are such a small minority, that it doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things,” it also carries a desire for empathy and reconciliation. , echoing the sentiments of the rioters: “They fill people’s heads with rumors and arguments, so they hate each other. In the Quran, it is written that wherever you live, you should strengthen it. But people don’t read. They don’t read their own books and don’t try to understand.” Although it details the rigidity of communal identity, Bhatia’s account does not reflect the affection people have for each other. The identity project ends with a Shailendra rejoicing at the victory of a BJP candidate in a local election. But Shailendra also likes the Muslim Nisar. There, perhaps , hope that democracy is not disorganized.