Two Swastikas: The Challenge of Dual Perspectives

Every time I saw the Nazi swastika printed on flyers around campus this week, the image provoked an immediate reaction of revulsion. For most of us, the swastika has an inherently violent connotation, linked to the Nazi regime and the exceptional barbarism of the Holocaust. The flier, advertising the Hindu Students Organization’s and the Columbia/Barnard Hillel’s Inter-cultural Committee’s event The Swastika, A Dual Perspective, exhibited the Nazi swastika alongside a Hindu Swastika. The fliers seemed to anticipate my emotional reaction to the symbol, and suggested I attended the event in order to learn about the “other account” of the swastika.

To this day, the ancient symbol of the swastika is of central importance to Indian religions, such as Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism. Derived from Sanskrit svasti, meaning well-being, it is often imprinted on religious texts, in temples, and for decoration on ceremony invitations. The appropriation of the symbol by the Nazi regime in the 1930s has transformed the swastika into a highly controversial image in the West. In his notorious Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler elaborates on his choice of the swastika, which was meant to reinforce the visual impact of the Nazi ideology. Hitler’s particular motivation for using the swastika was his belief of the German race’s descent from the historical Aryans, or Indo-Iranian people. Since the 1930s, the swastika’s original meaning has been subverted and the symbol is now seen as inherently linked to the Nazi’s social, national and racial doctrine. Because of what the symbol has come to represent, the swastika’s meaning in the West has entirely eclipsed its religious and spiritual significance in the East. Many countries even prohibited the use of the swastika following World War II.

Part of the incentive to promote a discussion on the two representations of the swastika is to advance an enlightened approach to the symbol and to combat the many misconceptions associated with this profoundly dualistic sign. But in addition to the informative intention of the event, the student groups are also planning to facilitate a discussion about the nature of symbols, such as the possibility for dual interpretation or the difficulty of creating and defining new meanings. The discussion will also highlight other historical examples of subverted symbols such as the confederate flag, which can signify southern pride as well as support for racial slavery.

But whether these questions should even be discussed, and whether this event is even appropriate in the first place, is itself subject to debate. Indeed, the possibility to “rectify” the nature of the swastika is profoundly problematic.

The extent to which the use of a sign for evil purposes can forever ruin the symbol brings up the question of whether a symbol’s meaning is contextual or absolute. Although the swastika has a spiritual value which deserves to be recognized, it would be naïve, and to some extent irresponsible, to want to dissociate the image completely from the Nazi regime. The situation is complex: banning the symbol would be discriminatory against one group, and using it profoundly insensitive to another.

This difficult discussion is emblematic of a push for religious tolerance, which often involves sacrifices. By establishing that no one person or group can monopolize the meaning of a symbol, those who traditionally associate the swastika with the Nazi regime commit to understanding the other interpretation of the swastika, and therefore do not object to its use by Hindu religions. At the same time, Hindu religions must continually evaluate whether they can use the symbol in a tactful way, and they must be sensitive about the dual interpretations of its meaning.

But the attempt to approach images dispassionately cannot reasonably be demanded of all viewers, especially not in a time when many are still very directly connected to the Holocaust. For many, the image of the swastika is so strongly associated with some of the most exceptional suffering in human history that the symbol cannot ever be neutralized. Although there is nothing wrong with supporting the religious and cultural value of a symbol like the swastika, using it responsibly is critical, particularly because it remains a sign of hate for neo-Nazis and skinheads today.

Popularizing the original peaceful meaning of the swastika in the West can be perceived by many as a triumph over evil, a revenge of the peaceful present over the past, and a refusal to allow Nazism to usurp tradition and meaning. But the importance of memory and the duty to never forget the 11 million victims of the Holocaust is also linked to the remembrance of the swastika. Indeed, part of keeping the stories alive is remembering the symbols as they’ve been used and ensuring that the suffering is acknowledged, not forgotten. The challenge is to fight for an intellectual recognition of the swastika’s dual meaning without diminishing the extent of the suffering experienced by millions during the Holocaust. The symbol, in this sense, becomes the modern battling ground for ideals, interpretations and history.

The author is a Columbia College sophomore majoring in political science.