The fact that the lions were originally named in BJP-ruled Tripura is edited out conveniently from the right-wing narrative.
Representative image. (iStock)
I have read an opinion that naming animals after well-respected figures like gods, mythological heroes, national leaders and Nobel laureates is an irrational and blasphemous act. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and others first expressed this view in a petition filed in the Calcutta High Court.
The petitioners argued that naming the lioness’ Sita’ was an “affront to their religious belief” and hurt their religious sentiments. The petition was not maintainable, so the court advised “the secular state” to change the lioness’s name and end the controversy. The Counsel for the West Bengal Government informed the court that the Government would consider renaming the lions in Siliguri’s Safari Park.
The VHP’s view was found to be reasonable by its rationality and the obvious ‘hurt’ it may have caused to one particular religious community. This “consensual” view is not based on law or naming conventions.
No major political party or prominent commentator questioned this self-evident truth. I am intrigued by the “consensus” on this matter.
Some may have considered this a trivial issue to contest in the court. Others may have wondered why to comment on such a trivial issue and further add to the controversy. But I have a feeling that the intelligentsia, media, political parties and other vocal sections may be sharing the commonsensical view that the naming of the lioness as ‘Sita’ is blasphemous and anti-Hindu.
How do we make sense of the politics of naming the lions and the allegations of ‘hurt sentiments’? Why does ‘a large section of society’ seem to share the VHP’s view?
I want to think about the truisms of the Hindu right and how they gained wide acceptance by consensus or silence in the public domain. Based on factual evidence, one could easily dismiss the VHP’s objection to naming animals after religious figures or kings.
In rural India, domestic animals are named after deities, kings and mythological figures. Cows, bulls and dogs are commonly named after deities by farmers. The ordinary villagers love and respect animals and offer prayers to them on certain festive occasions. A cursory look at the novels of the renowned Bengali writer Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay, Indian English writer R K Narayan and others gives us a long list of religious names given to dogs, cows, mongoose and other animals.
Several Hindi films have animals with religious names. A quick search on the web reveals that Delhi Zoological Park has a white tigress named Sita, who gave birth to three white cubs on 24 August 2022. Interestingly, the name of her mate, also a white tiger, is Vijay-22. The Los Angeles Zoo introduced an animal-naming programme to raise funds for animal welfare.
Many animals were named after older people. Such naming is considered a great honour. Despite this widespread practice of naming animals out of love, respect and spiritual reasons, why does one believe and accept the view that naming animals after gods and national icons is ‘irrational’ and ‘blasphemous’?
Italian thinker Gramsci might be of some help to us in making sense of this shared understanding of self-evident truths. He refers to common sense (Senso Comune) as public knowledge or taken-for-granted knowledge: the beliefs and opinions said to be held in common by the masses. Over time, this “knowledge” constitutes a solid core that explains what happens to us and others.
Gramsci suggests that this knowledge is derived from our immediate circles and mediated by narratives available to us. We have been made familiar with instances of “hurt sentiments”, and we are identified as religious communities: Hindus, Muslims and Christians.
The controversies around public speech, books, paintings, films and art installations are part of this narrativization of “identities.” Over some time, we have been “educated” to learn what is offensive and blasphemous. When VHP says that naming lions after gods or Muslim kings is offensive, we, “the larger society,” immediately know it is a self-evident truth. Many accept this view, and some others endorse it by their silence.
As Gramsci says, common sense or self-evident truth is constituted by multiple and often contradictory narratives. In other words, a selective appropriation of ‘facts’ and ‘fiction’ makes up the self-proclaimed truths.
In the Indian context, a particular understanding of religious identity, history, and social relations was shaped after the Bharatiya Janata Party came to power at the centre. For example, the narratives on love jihad, NCERT textbooks, pseudo-secularism and the Ram Mandir have created an ecosystem that mediates our understanding of contemporary issues.
The VHP and other Sangh Parivar organizations led a long and sustained campaign against what they called “love jihad”. Srinivasan Jain and two others have recently documented this hate campaign and argued that the VHP list of 147 “love jihad” cases are selective instances of gender crimes. They concluded that it is a falsehood to claim that the Muslims conspired to reduce the Hindus to a minority by the conversion of Hindu women.
However, the love jihad campaign was a success: it vilified and stereotyped the identity of the Muslim man. This hate campaign reinterpreted Muslim names and other Islamic religious identity markers as negative signs and often anti-national signs.
In the context of this master narrative, naming the lions as Sita and Akbar is offensive and objectionable. It fits nicely into the love jihad narrative, as it was alleged that both animals were kept in the same enclosure. Strangely, the fact that the lions were originally named in BJP-ruled Tripura is edited out conveniently from this narrative.
Similarly, deleting chapters relating to the Mughal rule, a slice of Indian history, in NCERT textbooks is yet another campaign by the BJP government and its affiliated organizations. This marginalization of the Mughal period and the role of Muslim rulers in official history are consistent with the BJP’s attempts to claim Indian history as Hindu.
We have been reading again and again that the Muslim rulers are invaders, outsiders and foreigners. It is in this context that Akbar’s name reminds us of the Muslim rule and the problematic Muslim identity. One tends to agree without much thinking that it is wrong to name a lion after the emperor Akbar.
The West Bengal government was accused of practising ‘pseudo-secularism’ by denigrating Hindu Gods. It was asked how a secular state could justify naming the two lions after gods and kings. This controversy erupted at a time when the consecration of the Ram Mandir at Ayodhya was described as a moment of true secularism. Therefore, the naming of the lioness as Sita is a sacrilege in this new secularism.
The VHP is clear about what it is doing. It reiterates and reinforces its narratives of Hindu-Muslim identities in the context of Lok Sabha elections. It uses its propaganda, institutions and state machinery to peddle its truths.
The polarization of the lions and the people on religious lines received a lot of publicity in public spaces, including the courtroom. The media reproduces all its allegations, such as the denigration of the Hindu Goddess, love jihad, pseudo-secularism and so on. If we want to contest these ‘hegemonic’ and false narratives of the Hindu right, silence is not the answer.
(The writer teaches at EFL University, Hyderabad. Views expressed are personal.)
