In its seemingly simple construction lies the intended subversiveness of the term ghar wapsi. While the English term ‘homecoming’ seems to be the literal translation of the expression, ghar wapsi is — and means — much more for the authors of this agenda. Ghar (home) implies all that we associate with our home — origin, lineage, safety, security, trust, faith and, of course, family. But here, in the hands and minds of its originators, the ghar is the Hindu umbrella, which they conveniently call ‘Sanatana Dharma’. Wapsi is even more dangerous, for it characterises certain people as lost, strayed, misled, stolen or captured.
Any form of violent religious conversion must be condemned. But that does not and should not deter us from being critical of what is a vulgar exercise of socio-religious violence in the form of ghar wapsi.
The dominant philosophy driving this programme is to establish the Hindu’s first right over this land. Ghar here means that the Hindu faith is the ‘original home’ for all those born in this land. It re-establishes the right-wing rhetoric that this is a Hindu rashtra. It also tells us that, if you want to feel secure or safe within this land, you have to be Hindu or accept Hindu antecedence, precedence and dominance. We are also told that you are family only when you belong to this faith; we trust you only if you are Hindu. The idea of the ‘original’ or ‘first’ is concocted and hammered down so that the rest feel inadequate unless they find ways to be part of that authentic lineage. Each of these implied messages are violent and need to be addressed head-on.
This is a land where many millions of Hindus live but that does not make this a ‘Hindu land’. This is a land of various belief systems, including religious ones and has always been that way. The Adivasis as the expression itself indicates are probably one of the earliest inhabitants of this land. Are they Hindu? Most certainly not. So, is their system of faith the real ghar? Or have we appropriated and mutilated even that? Does it matter where and when the Hindu faith began or for that matter Christianity or Islam? Does it matter if one was practised on this ‘piece of land’ before the other? Faith is not about geography; it is about living practice. As long as there are people living their life believing in a faith, it belongs to that place.
We also need to strongly counter the linear single-line narrative that the right-wing Hindus have drawn between the Vedas and religious practice today. In these thousands of years, there have been numerous counter narratives that questioned rejected practices that we call Hindu today. But by appropriating every one of those ‘rejections of the Vedic tradition’, these counter-movements have been cleverly made mainstream Hindu. This is where the term Sanatana Dharma becomes a very useful tool. The Jains and Buddhists have also been appropriated as part of this idea of Sanatana Dharma (let us not forget that Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu!), while they were actually the strongest independent rejections of Vedic postulations. We cannot and should not forget that this land was, for a period of time, Buddhist and Jain until these religions were overpowered with political support by the Hindu Bhakti movements. So then, should ghar mean Buddhism and Jainism?
People have over centuries converted and reconverted so many times and not just between faiths but even within faiths. The rejection of Vaishnavism to embrace Saivism is also a conversion since it involves the replacing of one set of beliefs and practices with another. In fact, changing strong philosophical positions is also conversion. Wasn’t the rejection of Advaita to embrace Visishtadvaita a form of conversion? But we do not recognise it now as conversion since we have homogenised the idea of the faith. But during its time it caused serious socio-political upheavals. We are all converts of some sort.
Be it the Shankaracharyas, the leading monks of the Ramakrishna order or the various new age yoga/mystic gurus, they have all uniformly remained quiet. Many have in the past raised their voice against what they have seen as forced conversion. I wonder in what category they place these ugly ghar wapsi rituals. It also has to be acknowledged that the vast majority of the non-political Hindus like myself have not protested enough.
Our ghar is not based on religious beliefs but is home to diverse thoughts and philosophies. Which came from where; what was shared, argued, added, deleted is irrelevant and undecipherable. What is true and real is that the people allowed all of these ‘ways of living’ to rub shoulders, contest notions and adapt as they moved and travelled among the people of this vast land. So where is the question of any wapsi?