Bloody Indians vs Chinkees!

Bloody Indians vs Chinkees!

(Published in The Sentinel Arunachal, dated March 10, 2011)

Jarpum Gamlin A yogi of Baba Ramdev’s stature got emotive just because ‘bloody’ was prefixed with the word ‘Indian’! At least he was referred to as Indian. Think of another scenario where people of mongoloid looks are slurred racially with the term ‘Chinkee’. A cuss word used to abuse a person of Chinese origin. Was it Ramdev’s pride or his prejudice? Or was it the ‘Chinkee’s’ frustration that took avatar in Ninong Ering, or one of his colleagues (the MP has since denied saying the b****y word)? Or was that a reaction to the Baba’s claim of indigenous faith as Hindus? Irrespective of whether it was his pride or prejudice, it is evident that Ramdev was not accorded the kind of media attention which was showered on His Holiness Dalai Lama during the Nobel laureate’s visit to Tawang. But Ramdev got the national media’s attention over a petty issue which a teenage Arunachalee, Naga or Manipuri would have ignored, like they do it every day in the streets of mainland India. Irrespective of whether Ninong Ering said those words or not, it was shocking to witness the reaction of a trained and revered yogi of Ramdev’s stature. Was Ering fair in asking Ramdev to stick to yoga and not beyond it! Or was the MP wrong? There emerge some issues here. The racial slur on each other by us Indians is a public knowledge. Our national conscience is stricken only when something similar happens outside the country. Shane Warne, and the racial slur on Indians in Australia, are recent examples. This is perhaps the first time that it has happened in a public place, between leaders, one political and another religious. Will there be public introspection on this ‘Chinkee’ usage hereafter? Second, every ordinary Indian agrees with Ramdev, and therefore the BJP, on the issue of bringing back money from Swiss Banks and ending corruption in governance. But can issues of public propriety and governance be raised from a religious platform by a religious leader? Will other religious leader be accorded the same liberty, a Christian proselytizer for example, to raise such issues publicly? Isn’t this yet another issue on the unending debate on secularism?    Ramdev’s visit would be remembered for other reasons also. His exclusion of Christian-dominated Patkai region is one. Being a preacher of Sanatan dharm, one would have expected the yogi to go to the trouble-torn eastern districts and convey his message of love and brotherhood. Recall, that before the ongoing factional fights started, there were reports of forcible religious conversion which the Indigenous faith leaders protested. Question is, if he could land in Mon region and in Tani belt, why did he skip the Patkai region? Most people in Arunachal eat pork. That doesn’t make them non-believers in Islam. Most relish beef, and that does not make them non-believers in Hinduism. The dual fact of being a beef and pork-eater does not make them Christians either. Sadly, in the tug-of-war between the expanding Cross and the restive Trident, native faiths are being tossed around like in a ping-pong game. While Church leaders dream of making Arunachal a ‘Christian State’, the Baba hurriedly did his part to stake claim beforehand. In the resulting melee, the roots of native faiths are painfully uprooted. One does so overtly, the other covertly. ‘Love’ and ‘ethics’ have long gone missing from the religious debate in the State. Violence and moral turpitude are therefore the growing order of the day in the State. The top of the mind recall of Ramdev’s visit would be his claimant over followers of indigenous faiths as Hindus and muted response from a cross-section of society. This was the first such open proclamation by any of the Hindu leaders. Is Arunachal a Hindu State?