Hindutva Is a Medicine, Not a Disease”: Dhirendra Shastri Responds to Iltija Mufti’s Remarks

Paromita Das

GG News Bureau
New Delhi, 12^th Dec. The political and cultural landscape of Bharat was once again shaken by a fiery controversy when Iltija Mufti, the daughter of former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti, referred to Hindutva as a “disease.” Her remark drew sharp criticism from various quarters, including Hindu seer Dhirendra Shastri of Bageshwar Dham, who strongly countered her statement by describing Hindutva as a unifying philosophy, a way of life, and the very essence of “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam,” the belief in the world as one family.

This exchange highlights the growing divide between political and ideological factions in Bharat, where terms like Hindutva often carry contrasting interpretations. While for some, Hindutva represents a spiritual and cultural ethos, for others, it symbolizes a political ideology with controversial undertones. Iltija’s remarks and the backlash they generated reveal the complexities of these discussions and their potential to polarize public opinion.

Iltija Mufti’s Controversial Remarks

Iltija Mufti’s statement criticizing Hindutva as an ideology of hatred fueled by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar during the 1940s drew ire from Hindu leaders and political commentators. She went on to equate Hindutva with oppressive acts, claiming that slogans like “Jai Shri Ram” have been misappropriated for violence against minorities. By linking Hindutva with radical extremism, Iltija sparked outrage, particularly among those who view the philosophy as integral to Bharat’s cultural fabric.

Her statement is part of a larger narrative espoused by some political leaders who oppose the perceived politicization of Hindu identity. However, such sweeping generalizations, especially when linking Hindutva with acts of violence, have been widely criticized as inflammatory and divisive. The remarks prompted demands for an apology from BJP leader Ravinder Raina, who condemned Iltija’s choice of words as disrespectful and unnecessary, emphasizing that political differences should not result in derogatory rhetoric.

The Response from Dhirendra Shastri

In a scathing rebuttal, Dhirendra Shastri dismissed Iltija Mufti’s remarks as baseless and offensive, stating that Hindutva is not a disease but a “medicine” for the world’s ailments. He explained that Hindutva promotes universal harmony and inclusivity, encapsulated in its ethos of seeing divine elements in every individual and recognizing the interconnectedness of humanity.

Shastri further lambasted Iltija’s mindset, accusing her of peddling divisive narratives and lacking an understanding of Hindutva’s essence. His remarks also extended to personal criticism, referencing Iltija’s family dynamics, including her mother’s marriage to her uncle, as an alleged reflection of hypocrisy. Though his comments received support from some quarters, they also raised eyebrows for their harsh tone and ad hominem nature.

A Broader Debate: Hindutva and Its Interpretations

At the core of this controversy lies the enduring debate over the definition and application of Hindutva. For many, Hindutva is a philosophy rooted in spiritual unity and cultural pride, often described as the foundation of Bharat’s identity. It is associated with concepts like “Dharma,” ethical living, and the principle of tolerance. Critics, however, argue that Hindutva has been appropriated as a political tool, weaponized to justify exclusionary policies and discrimination.

The divergent interpretations of Hindutva often fuel polarizing debates in political and social spheres. Iltija Mufti’s remarks are not isolated but part of a broader pattern where ideological disagreements escalate into contentious public debates, overshadowing meaningful discourse. The conflation of Hindutva with extremism, while politically charged, overlooks the philosophical and historical dimensions of the term.

Public Reaction and Political Implications

This controversy has further polarized an already divided electorate in Jammu and Kashmir and beyond. The BJP’s demand for an apology reflects its strategy to counter narratives that challenge Hindutva’s legitimacy as a cultural and spiritual framework. On the other hand, Iltija Mufti’s remarks, while inflammatory, align with her broader critique of BJP-led policies and their impact on minority communities.

It is worth noting that Iltija’s recent entry into electoral politics has been marked by challenges. Her decision to contest the Bijbehara seat in Jammu and Kashmir, a family stronghold for 25 years, resulted in a humiliating defeat. This setback may have fueled her outspoken rhetoric, as she attempts to carve a distinct political identity amid a shifting regional landscape.

The Need for Constructive Discourse

Controversies like these underscore the urgent need for a more constructive approach to political and cultural debates. While dissent and critique are essential in a democracy, inflammatory language and personal attacks undermine the potential for meaningful dialogue. Leaders on both sides of the spectrum must prioritize clarity and respect in their arguments, focusing on addressing real issues rather than perpetuating divisions.

Conclusion

The Iltija Mufti-Dhirendra Shastri controversy encapsulates the complexities of modern Bharatiya politics, where cultural identity, ideology, and personal ambition intersect. While Iltija’s remarks have sparked outrage, they also highlight the deep-rooted disagreements over Hindutva’s meaning and application. Dhirendra Shastri’s response, though passionate, further fueled the controversy with its pointed personal attacks.

In the end, the debate over Hindutva cannot be resolved through polemics or inflammatory rhetoric. It requires a nuanced understanding of its historical, cultural, and political dimensions, as well as an acknowledgment of the diverse perspectives within Bharat’s pluralistic society. This controversy should serve as a reminder of the importance of civil discourse and the responsibility of public figures to engage in constructive debates that foster unity rather than division.