Shrinking space for Debate

It has been generally believed that in any public discussions over issues with socio-political implications; reason, facts & logic lie with the progressives while the conservatives rely more on social norms, emotions and demagoguery. This truism may have been valid, more so in the changing order of the last century when entrenched beliefs in India got challenged in view of newer emerging social awareness, much of it influenced by exposure to the Western Civilization.

In fact, social change was not the preserve of the progressives alone, Hindu traditionalists, Nationalists and Socialists, all strived to mould social beliefs to their own ideologies. So, we had Savarkar’s masterly disposition on Hindutva sharing honors with MN Ray’s radical humanism and Nehru’s socialism, all making forceful arguments highlighting the strength of their own ideological thoughts. A perusal of papers on the working of the Indian Constituent Assembly (1946-1950), will convince anyone that this assembly of august men drawn from all shades of political opinions and social classes, was a debater’s delight. Oratorical skills, combined with deft usage of facts and logic by rationalists, socialists, Nationalists, traditionalists and other representatives of various interest groups made adoption of any single provision of the constitution, a herculean task. This state of affairs continued and even a seemingly religious activity like the restoration of Somnath temple was carried on following reasoned campaign carried out by KM Munshi. However, this was not to continue for very long and the Governmental efforts to codify the Hindu Personal Law bought about the first schism in between passion and logic of the traditionalists. While the Nehru Government had to bow down to this strong opposition, both within and outside the Congress (leading to Ambedkar’s exit from the Government), its failure to carry the reform then was more on account of the impassioned pleas on defending the Indian (Hindu) way of life, than any other reason. However, Nehru managed to get Ambedkar’s baby adapted in three parts over the years as he systematically cleansed Congress of all opposition. Working in his favor was the impression created that the conservatives did not have any sound argument to support their contention and this perception might have played a role in the Hindu middle class not integrating completely with the Cow Protection Movement led by Sant Karpatri and Jana Sangh. (Incidentally this agitation died out after police firing killed scores of sadhus marching to gherao the Parliament).

As the Leftist hold over Indian academia strengthened with the rise of Ms Indira Gandhi, the space for the right decreased all the more. So, while the Swaraj Party and the Congress (O) may have had all the logic behind them when they espoused their policies, the prevailing public discourse made them appear ‘reactionary’ and feudal, bent on sustaining an old, exploitative order. The dice shifted slightly towards the right with the rise of militant Hindutva, espousing the cause of the Ram Janmabhoomi agitation. Articulate speakers like Govindacharya, Pramod Mahajan, Sushma Swaraj, Rajnath Singh, Narendra Modi and others provided perfect logical foil to the demagoguery of Ashok Singhal and Acharya Giriraj Kishore and suddenly, the Hindu Right did not seem so stupid after all!

However, good times did not last long and an apologetic BJP started looking lost for facts post the structure demolition in 1992. Still, a general population fed up with the Rao Government’s corruption and Devegowda-Gujral shenanigans, reposed faith in the BJP and most media houses, while not supportive of the BJP, would openly criticize the said Governments of those days. The watershed movement in public debate has, of course, been the Gujarat riots of 2002. While the killings of innocents cannot be justified, the event resulted in battlelines getting drawn up sharply in between the Right and the Left. Slowly, shrillness and demagoguery seems to have been adopted by the progressives as its very own. Hence, other than Goebbelsian propaganda, we have been exposed to funny conclusions. Example – Praful Bidwai on how the NDA Government’s Highway building project was similar to Nazi autobahns and a proof of their fascist ideology. Sadly, with the Indian Middle Class less and less interested in public discourse, we have the powerful media deciding what we think. Debate has anyways been a diminishing phenomenon in the Parliament with bills getting passed sans discussion. Now, even public debate has been reduced to the charade of a few usual suspects haranguing in Television Studios, with the fiercely ideological ‘moderators’ pretending to play referee.

A favored approach adopted by today’s progressives is to make any random assertion, add a dash of some lofty statement, deflect any factual argument by moving on to the next topic without repudiating, declaring the opponents as fanatical and then, when cornered, grandstand and close the argument with another lofty rendering of the UN Charter for Universal Human Rights! While such tactics have been the hallmark of JNU variety historians for long, the trend seems to have caught up and has been adapted with open arms by people of all hues, be it Manish Tiwari of the Congress, Teesta Setalvad of the Gujarat riots industry, Ram Punyani of the Hindu terror, DN Jha of the Aryan beef eaters or Arundhati Roy of all things.

I have squared off on various topics with many, both the ‘eminent’ and the ‘common’ and have first-hand experience on the tactics adapted by these sections of the Civil Society. However, till a couple of days back, such discussions were either face to face, in a forum, on emails or as a part of an E Group, where keeping a track of all arguments is not very easy. Hence, the exchange prompted by my response to MK Dhar’s (Ex Joint Director, IB) comments on the Facebook status message of Kiran Trivedi (neo Gandhian and professional activist from the Gujarat riots industry), was a learning for me, on the ways and arguments adopted by these sections of Civil Society.

Mr Trivedi’s message equated the flood relief organized by Pakistani terror groups to relief activities organized by the RSS and VHP and claimed that both only wanted new recruits out of such activities. While some people supported this comment, others protested, pointing out the fallacy of this argument and I had to say that by this convoluted logic, organizations like the Red Cross and Lion’s Club too, could be equated to the terror Groups. Then came the usual lie, Amit Shah (small time theatre artist) claimed that the RSS killed Gandhi. On Mr Dhar’s nailing the lie, Sukumar Trivedi (journalist) loftily brushed it aside saying that the fact whether or not RSS was the killer is a matter of ‘profound indifference’ and went on to pass more of unfounded statements. In the meanwhile, Kiran Trivedi managed to sound almost persecuted, pointing to the potential of damage the protestors can cause to his person! Anyways, there was an exchange of comments and none of the counter arguments presented by Trivedi et al, addressed the points raised by us. Finally, curtains were sought to be bought down by S Trivedi, posting some lines on humanism and Kiran pretending that the entire exchange never happened!

It will be easy to dismiss this exchange of being no consequence, having been carried among people who, frankly carrying no importance in the larger scheme of things (yours truly included). However, what it does prove is that facts and logic have become perfectly expendable commodities in public discourse and to be ‘liberal-progressive’ is deemed qualification enough to pontificate on any topic under the sun, all the while haughtily dismissing facts and alternate opinions as fanatical. To adapt a phrase from Mr Pratap Bhanu Mehta, “these ‘activists’ think their own good intentions are a substitute for analytical thoughts,”

It is a scary thought that shrill voices emerging out of the 24 X 7 media could numb the senses of well meaning people. Probably, George Orwell was not being alarmist when he wrote of ‘Newspeak’ and indifference of the proles, in 1984.

Those interested can access the documented exchange Here

When ignorance passes for assertions - Uninformed Support for the Mosque at Ground Zero

This post has been prompted by the celebration of a piece on American tolerance by an Indian American published here. Reading that piece makes one realise that not only is the columnist horrendously uninformed, such pieces somehow manage to strike a chord with probably well meaning, but yet again, the informed, and become a part of the mainstream discourse.

This article by Shikha Dalmia claims to analyse the ongoing debate on the proposed mosque on Ground Zero, in New York and comes up with two conclusions; one, that the American is a very tolerant creature, when it comes to religious freedom and the other, that the mosque is very much desirable at that spot.

Though I don’t have any particular view on whether Americans should or should not have the mosque (it is their choice, after all), I do have issues with the fanciful assertions and conclusions which Shikha has managed to draw out of thin air.

Firstly, taking the case of American tolerance, no doubt that it is a tolerant country. However, at the same time, the US President has to proclaim many a times that he belongs to the Christian faith. It is a country where the religious belief of the lawmakers plays an extremely important role in deciding whether they will or they will not be elected as lawmakers. Other than Obama, recall the public proclamation of faith which the much hyped Bobby Jindal and Nikki Randhawa Haley had to make. Any whiff of their being a Hindu or a Sikh and presto, the chance of election would be out of the window. Forget about religion, the USA is so hung up on being a Nation founded on Protestant values that Kennedy’s election was in jeopardy on account of his Catholic beliefs. Yet again, policy decisions in the USA are still very much dictated by religion. Opposition to abortion, gay rights, stem cell research and countless other issues are not based on morality or logic! It is simply religion all the way. Compare that to India. Has ever Indian Prime Minister publicly proclaimed his/her faith? We don’t know anything about the religious beliefs of Late Rajiv Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi and her two children and frankly, do we care? We’ve had two Christian Chief Ministers in Andhra, many Christian Chief Ministers in Kerala, a Sikh for a Prime Minister, three Muslims as the President and numerous other minorities in Constitutional positions. Ever heard any of these ever becoming a topic of discussion? Likewise, which policy decision has been supported or challenged on account of religious beliefs? The Cow protection movement took care to stress on the importance of bovine economy and the Save Ganga movement is yet again focused on the importance of the river in the economic sense. Where have religious beliefs dictated policy decisions ever in India?

This is not to say that the Indian tolerance is greater than that of the USA. It is simply that both of them are distinct Nations and have evolved culturally in a different manner. To say that my tolerance is greater than yours is only symptomic of a fluffy, woolly headed analysis.

Coming to the other part on why the mosque is a good idea, the columnist makes the following points (reproduced verbatim):

It will house a place of worship, but it won't blare muezzin calls summoning Muslims to pray five times a day, suggesting that it has a fairly relaxed attitude toward Quranic strictures. Nor will it be a Muslim-only place where members of other faiths are unwelcome; rather it will be open to anyone willing to pay its dues. est (or worst) of all, it won't be "on" Ground Zero, but two blocks and a bend away at a spot not visible to World Trade Center visitors.

None of this is preventing some opponents from bizarrely suggesting that the center represents a surreptitious attempt to glorify Islamic victory on American soil. But a victory statement communicated through esoteric means negates itself because such means signal weakness, not strength. What's more, it is one odd victory statement when its alleged authors are not claiming any moral high ground for their putative side. To the contrary, the couple, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan, who are spearheading the center, have "refudiated" the 9/11 attacks in particular and Islamic terrorism in general.

They have qualms about U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that plenty of nonterrorist Americans would share. And they are Sufis, the moderate and mystical sect of Islam that is known for its refined music and art, not its militancy.

Now the ‘refudiations’:

Local laws in most US towns restrict such loudspeakers in public places. That there will not be a muezzin doesn’t make it different from any other mosque. Likewise, most mosques, even in India do not restrict entry of non-believers, (except for the pulpit). No temple or church restricts entry of non-believers in the USA either. So what’s so special about the ‘openness’ of this mosque?

Most laughable is the assertion of the building being symbolic of defeat, if that is the motive. This is precisely the danger of pop-psychology. Anyone can read something somewhere, consider oneself certified and make all sort of out of the world assertions, expecting others to lap up anything. Of course, people all over the world are fools that they still go to ruins to marvel at the strength and achievements of empires of the yore or admire majestic structures. Using the columnists' logic Qutab is a symbol of Islamic defeat in India and the Vijay Stambh in Chittor is a symbol of Rajput defeat at the hands of the Turks. The tricolour, rather than the Union Jack, over the Red Fort is only an esoteric symbol, certainly signifying that India lost but Britain won. Bah!

Now comes the defence of the promoters of the mosque and they are presented as angelic figures. The columnist only fails to mention that the angel like male figure had contended  “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened". Only today, there was another item on the angelic female asserting that the mosque would be raised at the precise spot and nowhere else. Shades of the Babri Masjid assertions, anyone? The American tolerance and polite requests for shifting of the proposed mosque obviously have no impact on these very American citizens. Yet again, the couple’s supposed Sufi background is highlighted to underline that these are indeed enlightened moderate people. Wish that the columnist had highlighted that alongwith music and mysticism, Sufis have been the sword arm of Islam, their own warrior monks, who carried the Quran by sword in the various parts of the subcontinent; Sylhet, Deccan and Kashmir included. Why go back so much in history when the partition in 1947 threw up powerful pirs who led holy jehad against the Hindus and Sikhs in NWFP, Punjab and Bengal? Being a Sufi is not being a Jain Monk practicing Ahimsa to all!

The columnist then moves on to comparisons with India:

And it would never happen in India, my native country, where Hindu lynch mobs, aided and abetted by the ruling Congress Party, orchestrated a mini pogrom of Sikhs following the 1984 assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguard.

It is out of question that a Sikh gurudwara could ever be erected next to Gandhi's residence, where she was assassinated, against the will of the majority Hindu population. And Indian Muslims have yet not been allowed to rebuild the mosque that Hindus led a national march to tear down with their bare hands in 1991—not even as recompense for the bloodletting they visited upon Muslims following the mosque razing.

“Hindu lynch mobs, aided and abetted by the ruling Congress Party,” – What does the columnist want to say? That the Congress party does not comprise of Hindus or whether the mobs were not connected with the Congress? How does she know that Muslim Congressmen were not a part of the mobs? Wouldn’t it have been more factual simply to state that Congress mobs attacked people from the Sikh community?

The contention on the Gurudwara near Smt Gandhi’s assassination spot is all the more laughable. Firstly, unlike the Ground Zero plot, the place were the assassination happened is not a private property but is owned by the Government. How can the Government of a supposedly secular state build a place of worship? Most importantly - has any such demand ever been made? Will any Hindu ever have any objection to a Gurudwara? Also, will any Congress Government ever do anything that disturbs soil made sacred by the most important family in India?

Finally, the must have Babri reference in the article. The challenges faced by the columnist comes through in her assertion that the mosque was demolished in 1991. In reality, the structure demolition happened in 1992. She then talks of recompese. Recompense would be unending - where to start? It start with the Muslim conquest of the subcontinent or the various temples which were destroyed during riots or those which were destroyed in 1990, in the aftermath of the first Kar Seva, or those which were destroyed post December 6, 1992? Also, shouldn't we get into the point that almost all riots in the demolition aftermath, be it Mumbai, Kolkata, Ahmedabad, Dhubri, Goalpara, Mau, Aligarh, Vadodara, Azamgarh, Indore and other cities were started by Muslim mobs attacking Hindu places of worship? What bloodletting does she talk of, when in each riot, at least a third of all casualties would be from the so-called majority community! The columnist further makes a point that perpetrators of Muslim and Sikh massacres in India have not been brought to justice. While true, she could also have highlighted the fact that killers of Hindus have also not been brought to book in India. It is more a systematic failure of our judicial and law enforcing system that anything else.

One is free to have any belief and support the cause one believes in. However, uninformed and ill-baked assertions are dangerous to the society for they create a make believe world which does not exist and negatively impact the thinking of the reader population. Unfortunately, sloganeering and mouthing of platitudes seems to have replaced respect for facts in the media world.

Oh Kashmir!

Let me begin this post with my head bowed to the Lord Almighty who made a Darshan of the Holy Cave and Bhawan a reality for me!

Early this month, I went off to the state of Jammu & Kashmir for the primary purpose of having a Darshan of the divine manifestation of the Lord at the Holy Cave at Amarnath. The purpose achieved, I spent a day each at Srinagar and Gulmarg (apart from the stay at Sonmarg), before proceeding to Katara for the Darshan of Mata Vaishno Devi on Trikuta hills. For me, this was the first experience of the land of Jammu & Kashmir, and of course, the first prime view of the people who inhabit those lands.

It was my first experience of a city under curfew and was made aware that curfew does not mean a complete absence of civilians from road, nor necessarily a complete cessation of economic activities. The journey to Sonmarg from Srinagar required our driver to halt at a few places, i.e., the travel agency, a tyre repair shop and a yatra halt, wherefrom we proceeded to Sonmarg alongwith other yatra vehicles in a convoy. Curfew was much more relaxed in Ganderbhal and subsequent areas once out of Srinagar. Outside a J&K Bank ATM, numerous Kashmiri youths came up to me asking about the situation in Srinagar and expressing their pain on the happenings asking as to why is it that only Kashmiri stone pelters die when stone pelters in any other part of India are only lathi-charged? Except for mildly responding that deaths are unfortunate but that we don’t really know the situation under which the forces fired, I held back from arguing. Similar tales of Indian brutality got narrated all across, at Sonmarg, at Baltal, at Panjtarini, at Srinagar and at Gulmarg.

Overall, I captured the following impressions in the course of my stay in Kashmir:

• Kashmir is not seen as a part of India

• Kashmiris despise the Omar Government and the entire Abdullah clan. At the same time, Kashmiris have fond memories of the Mufti Government saying that it was the only one which understood and met Kashmiri needs

• Srinagar is quite an affluent city with people none the poorer for the lockouts

• Lots of money seems to be coming in to the valley. The entire stretch of the town of Kangan on Srinagar – Sonmarg route had new swanky houses coming up in place of old poor buildings. What is the source of this sudden and universal prosperity?

• People are inconvenienced by the curfew and demonstrations but see them as integral to their ‘struggle’ against India

• There seems to be an absolute belief that the loss of tourism on account of Kashmir’s imminent ‘independence’ would be more than made up by tourists from Pakistan and other parts of the world. In fact, the opinion seems that disturbances on account of the state being controlled by India has held back tourism growth

• Text message service seems active for local Kashmiris. While my post paid Airtel connection had its sms service barred in Srinagar, I both heard and saw the caretaker of my houseboat receiving a text message on his cellphone. Which network was it?

• The valley seems to be a willing customer to rumour mongers. One evening, the driver of our cab, the shikarawallah, the houseboat caretaker and another Kashmiri on Dal pier told us that eight people have been killed in firing at Ganderbhal. We had traveled the same route the same very evening and did not find any sign of any such event. Further, there was no mention of this supposed event anywhere in any news item, not even on Kashmiri newspaper websites.

• Kashmiri communal amity is a myth. Their mosques are centers of anti India propaganda. Likewise, another myth being propagated is Kashmiri support for the Amarnath Yatra! Support to yatra is a pure economic activity and does not have any other aspect for the local populace. In fact, Kashmiris are furious that the yatris are being allowed to go ahead in spite of the curfew in which their movements are not free. While we personally did not face any hostile mob, our co-guests at the houseboat had their convoy  of vehicles  stoned. Other yatris had similar stories to share. The conduct of the pony-wallahs, the sundry store owners at camps cannot be termed as amicable by any stretch of imagination. Another yatri was almost roughed up by pony-wallahs when he innocently proclaimed that Kashmir is also India!

• Muslims from Poonch are not necessarily pro India and anti Kashmiri, as some sections of the media would like us to believe

• It is only on account of the massive security bandobast that the Amarnath Yatra goes on. Had it not been for them, there wouldn’t be any yatra except probably for a handful of local Kashmiri Hindus making the pilgrimage to the Holy Cave.

• Even for the Government of India, the yatra seems to be more than a religious event and  is probably designed to showcase the security control over the valley. To borrow someone else’s words, the Yatra, with pilgrims from all across the country, though more so from Punjab, is the muscular symbol of India’s presence in the valley

It is disturbing to accept that the overwhelming majority of a part of your country does not want to be with you. As a democrat, the first instinct is to let them secede. Even as a materialist, one would say that Kashmir has been a drain on India’s resources right from 1948. Forget the money, it has taken so many precious young lives of my countrymen. Rather than having such thankless people as a millstone around our neck, it would probably be the best solution to leave them to their desired fate.

However, some harsh reality check throws up the following even more disturbing aspects to the issues in Kashmir:

• Public opinion is fickle and two decades a very small period in the history of a Nation. These very Kashmiris did not want to accede to Pakistan in 1947-48, today they do and who knows of what they will desire tomorrow? Can the destiny of a Nation be entwined to such fickleness? Further, more mature democracies of UK, USA, Spain etc, historically, have nipped all attempts at secession in the bud. Are we a more mature democracy that we allow secessionist voices to gain victory?

• What happens to the rights of the original inhabitants of the land of our sages and Rishis? Or is it that this persecuted minority has no right to the land of their forefathers? Forget about the cleansing of Hindus from Pakistan, we have seen Kashimiriyat in all its glory in 1931, in 1950, in 1986, in 1990, in 1992, in numerous village massacres. Lest someone claim that such instances belong to the hoary past, let that person be aware of the temple burning in Anantnag, (July 2010) and attack on Sikhs in Awantipora (July 2010). It is more than clear that non-Muslims don’t have any place in Kashmir. Are Kashmiri Pandits doomed to exile status for following the call of their Shaivaite faith?

• What happens to the Hindu access to Amarnath, to Kheer Bhawani, to Awantipora, to Martand and the numerous temples and shrines which make up Kashmir?

• If Kashmiri ‘angst’ is not on account of religion, then why are mosques their centers of intrigue, of propaganda and they call for war? Why is the ‘struggle’ against ‘Indian occupying forces’ seen as a Jehad? Why is Anantnag called Islamabad or why has the Shankaracharya Hill been christened as Takht-i-Sulieman by the locals?

• If Kashmir does indeed separate from India, is it not again a reaffirmation of the fact that Hindus and Muslims are indeed a separate Nation? Will it not further give impetus to the fact that the strongest proponents of Pakistan, i.e., Muslims from United Provinces have very much remained in India, even after gaining their desired ‘Land of the Pure’?

• Elections are routinely rigged all across the country. In fact, states like West Bengal and Bihar have rarely seen a complete ‘fair’ election process. Why is it that these states don’t want to secede from India?

• The vanquished in the allegedly rigged elections of 1987 wanted to impose Shariat in Kashmir and wanted to use the Assembly to pass a resolution of independence. Supposedly, Syed Salahuddin and Yasin Malik picked up the gun when they were failed by rigging. Does listening to the Kashmiris mean listening to cries of ‘freedom’?

• If Kashmir indeed does separate, how will the state be divided? Kashmir becoming independent/going to Pakistan and Ladakh and Jammu remaining with India or even the latter two being divided on religious lines? If the latter happens, all we would be left with would be Leh and some three and a half districts of Jammu

• If we are indeed an occupying force, then why to allow so many anti Nationals, both in Kashmir and in mainland India to campaign against India?

• Has not the Kashmiri ‘alienation’ been fed by the special status accorded to that state? How can any reasonable person expect that people being told that they are different from us, start believing that they are indeed one of us?

The answers to the issues plaguing Kashmir are obviously not easy. Only, let not the fear of our own demons or the exhaustion of holding on to our historical lands overwhelm us so much that we take the easiest way out!