Russian gymnast Ivan Kuliak has faced widespread condemnation for displaying the ‘Z’ symbol, supporting the Russian invasion of Ukraine at the Gymnastics World Cup event in Doha, Qatar. The ‘Z’ symbol was spotted on Russian military vehicles on the first day of the invasion. Additionally, ordinary Russians have been sporting it in support of the invasion. The interpretations of ‘Z’ and Ivan Kuliak’s “shocking behaviour” have made it to the headlines but with a twist of bigotry and false equivalences.
Here’s a quick look at the highlights of recent articles that talk about the ‘Z’ symbol:
“Precisely what the letter stands for is uncertain but—with Putin dubbed a ‘21st-century Hitler’—some have compared it to the Nazi swastika in the Second World War”, says Daily Mail.
“Russians, who claim to be fighting for peace and “deNazification,” adopt a visual symbol that appears to reference the swastika”, reported The New Yorker.
“Now, the ‘Z’ has become akin to a new “swastika” or symbol of hatred and is showing up everywhere supporters of Russia’s uninvited invasion of Ukraine can be found”, says The Daily Beast.
“Andrei Zorin, a professor and chair of Russian at the University of Oxford, told Fortune that it was “conspicuously” reminiscent of the Nazi swastika”—Fortune Olga Rudenko, of the Kyiv Independent news website in a tweet, said, “Russians have chosen the letter ‘Z’ as the symbol for their invasion of Ukraine… I don’t understand why they didn’t go for the full swastika”.
This is not the first instance of explicit display of Hinduphobia by the global media, in 2018. Reuters had taken down the picture of UN Ambassador Nikki Haley which had a Hindu temple (in Delhi) with a swastika in the background. The news agency said, “It was used as a symbol by Nazi Germany”. This association of the Z symbol with Swastika is the additional wave of bigotry to the existing appropriations. The Hakenkreuz vs Swastika debate had resurfaced recently when the Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau associated flags waved by truck drivers protesting in Ottawa with the Swastika. Bill C-229 drew condemnation from the Indo-Canadian community and international Hindu organisations for banning the Swastika enabling state-sponsored Hinduphobia. Additionally, Indian origin Canadian MP Aarya had called for emphasising the difference between the two symbols.
Trudeau is yet to apologise. Hitler had adopted the hooked cross from a Christian Monastery (Lambach Abbey) which he had seen when he was younger. The hooked cross (Hakenkreuz) has a history of fewer than a hundred years while the swastika is proof of humanity’s oldest civilisation. The swastika is a Hindu symbolic representation of humanity.
Drawing any similarities between the Swastika and the Hakenkreuz is the greatest evangelical defamation of Dharma. It is beyond bizarre to draw an equivalence between the Nazi symbol and the sacred Swastika which belongs to a faith that accepts all forms of worship, is broad enough to absorb and coexist with all monotheistic religions and is inherently inclusive. The Swastika is drawn before big and small rituals in homes and temples and is also associated with Shree Ganesha. It is also considered sacred in Buddhism and Jainism. The word Swastika is derived from a combination of two Sanskrit words, Su (good) and Ast (exist) and is hence considered a sacred symbol of good fortune, hope and auspiciousness. The English version of Mein Kampf wrongly translated Hakenkreuz to Swastika instead of hooked-cross. These are not scattered individual instances; there are countless and systematic attempts to deliberately equate the two symbols to fit the larger narrative of vilifying Hinduism and everything associated with it. In 2008, the Hindu-Jewish summit had addressed the Swastika for its positive existence in a formal resolution, which says, “Swastika is an ancient and greatly auspicious symbol of the Hindu tradition. It is inscribed on Hindu temples, ritual altars, entrances, and even account books. A distorted version of this sacred symbol was misappropriated by the Third Reich in Germany and abused as an emblem under which heinous crimes were perpetrated against humanity, particularly the Jewish people. The participants recognize that this symbol is, and has been sacred to Hindus for millennia, long before its misappropriation.”
To yet believe it is a genuine failure to differentiate between the two symbols would mean to obscure reality, reward the bigots, facilitate the cultural misappropriation and compromise the representation of the world’s oldest civilisation.
Comments