Self Mutilation as Politics

Old is Gold, it is said. And indeed, Eastern civilizations abound in tales of the wise, who were invariably old, venerable figures. It is not without reason that the longest chapter in the Mahabharata is Shanti Parva, containing discourse of the Kuru Elder, Bhishma. In an era, where wisdom meant tales, both experiential and heard, having weathered numerous summers and having enjoyed countless springs was the surest way to assemble knowledge.

Even today, the oldest of the intellectuals, if still mentally agile, can astound the young with depth of their knowledge. 

Yet, time is a tireless enemy which creeps upon one and sundry. While ageing and signs of entropy are seldom a pleasant sight, the pain becomes more pronounced when time impacts people who were instrumental in creating history.

Whichever side of the divide one is, one will be hard pressed not to pause and wonder on what has made the architect of the modern Hindutva movement in India a pale shadow of what he was. For a man who could do no wrong, be it strongly articulating the Hindu angst, making the BJP the party for power, grooming the strongest Gen-next leadership in the nineties, supporting liberalization, renouncing electoral politics when stained or giving up the claim to Prime Ministership, the tables seem to have turned so much so that his once killer political instincts seem to have got seriously blunted.

The last decade and a half have not been kind to Shri Advani. For a man who was seen as a successor to Sardar Patel, his stint as the Home Minister will always be overshadowed by the colossal mismanagement of Kandhar hijacking. His only real shot at Prime Ministership in 2004 got mired in the thoughtless India Shining campaign and his intellectually dishonest declaration of Jinnah as secular robbed him of the moral high ground he possessed. If the admirer still hoped that the genius of Shri Advani would ensure his rebirth, he was disappointed again when the sham of Notes for Vote hit the Nation. This was not all. The Nation had to be a party to the spectacle of Shri Advani being made the butt of joke for his dumbbell lifting, karate chop acts in 2009 General elections followed by the unseemly scene of the diminishing RSS trying to order a reluctant Advani off the public sphere.

Now, Advaniji seems intent on making a spectacle of the BJP yet again by forcing the reluctant party to contest the lost Presidential elections.

It is not difficult to empathize with those who don’t desire a contest. For an election which is already lost, what is to be gained by diminishing one’s stature even more? If the BJP were so serious about contesting, why did they have to wait to finalize a candidate for so long? If Kalam was the intended choice, why could the BJP not convince even Jayalalitha to support him? We are now left with the spectacle of the party going mall-shopping for candidates with the ageing Advani trying to push support for Sangma. For the apologists, that the BJP is not willing to give the UPA a walkover is reason valid enough to contest and a public display of its willingness to fight the UPA is certain to boost BJP’s standing among the general public.

But seriously, what will the BJP gain by contesting a no-gamer? If it for symbolic value of supporting a tribal, a Christian for the President’s post, the media and Mr Advani will do good to themselves to remember that the first such candidate was put up by the BJP itself in 1992, in form of Mr George Gilbert Swell, against Shankar Dayal Sharma. While we don’t know if that sagacious act led to any accretion of BJP’s support base amongst the Christian community, what we certainly know is that the same GG Swell denounced the BJP on the floor of the house in 1996 and voted against the confidence vote on the thirteen day Vajpayee Government. This was barely 10 days post his affirming his and 6 fellow MPs support to Vajpayee, but that is another story.

Even though the outcome of the Presidential Elections of 2007 was even more pre-determined, the NDA still had valid grounds to contest the polls. Not only did the Sonia Gandhi led UPA commit an atrocity on the Nation in form of the current incumbent’s candidature, the BJP had a towering personality, as its presidential candidate. Further, even though the NDA did not expand (Shiv Sena actually walked away), it did manage to gain votes of the AIADMK, Panther’s Party, INLD, AGP and AGP(P) in those polls.

Here, even before the polls, the Shiv Sena has yet again walked away and it is likely that the JD(U) and Akali Dal will follow suit. If the motive is to gain affection of either Mamata, Jaya or Naveen, why does it have to be at the cost of long standing allies, the only ones from the 1996 Government days?

Even if the BJP had a good candidate, would it still be a reason enough to oppose Pranab Mukherjee? Granted that Mr Mukherjee’s stint as the Finance Minister has not been great, granted that his image is even more Teflon coated than Mr Jaitley’s in the sense that there has not been even the slightest hint of criticism of his role and even granted that as Finance Minister, he cannot absolve himself of responsibility regarding numerous scams which have plagued the UPA regimes. Still, Mr Mukherjee deserves to be the President of the country, if for nothing else, for bringing back a semblance of gravity to the post.

It is after twenty five years that the country has the opportunity of having as its Head, a political personality, who is neither a lightweight, nor a political has-been or a symbolic appointment. The winner of the 1987 polls, R Venkatraman was in active politics when he became the President and had been the home and defence minister of the country. His successor, Dr Shankar Dayal Sharma was leading a semi retired life in form of gubernatorial postings before he became the Vice President. Following him was KR Narayanan, a political lightweight who became President on account of being at the right place at the right time. While Dr APJ Abul Kalam enjoyed phenomenal popularity as the President, he was not a political person when nominated and his glory days with DRDO were far behind him. Regarding his successor, the lesser said the better. Though, to be fair to her, Ms Patil has conducted herself much more admirably that the outrightly biased KR Narayanan.

Compared to his 4 predecessors, Pranab Mukherjee, with almost half a century of political life behind him, is much better placed to don the role of the President of this country. If Mr Mukherjee is to be opposed merely for the reason that Ms Sonia Gandhi displayed ill grace in not even consulting with the NDA leaders before announcing his candidature, well, that is a fig leaf of a reason and only serves to even more belittle the dignity of the post.

But why, why does Mr Advani, (alongwith Ms Sushma Swaraj and Mr Anant Kumar) persist in pushing for a contest? While for Anant Kumar, it could be a mode of repaying his debt to Advaniji for standing by him in his intrigues against Yedyurappa, for Ms Swaraj, it could either be a genuine respect for the patriarch or a baser way of getting back at Mr Arun Jaitley. What we need not speculate is the reason behind Advaniji’s persistence. Who else, but the Trojan who has destroyed Advani and in the process damaged the BJP beyond recognition? Yes, the architect of the India Shining campaign, of the secular Jinnah fiasco, of the Notes for Vote sham, is at it once again. And he will not rest till his mission, i.e., decimation of the BJP is achieved.

Even for the most noble purpose of vanquishing the enemy, it is difficult for any person to cohabit with it, to claim to think of its good, to denounce one’s old attachments and be careful enough not to utter what one holds dear in life. It is one thing to say that one should mingle with the enemy to defeat if and another to practice. But, it is men like Sudheendra Kulkarni who can warm our hearts enough to still believe that men can still be committed to their ideology strongly enough and do what was hitherto considered impossible. One can only salute the bitter pills Kulkarni has swallowed and still swallows as he proclaims himself a BJP man. One cannot even imagine the torment his soul is under as he hides his Marxist identity and wears a saffron mask. O Kulkarni, you are a Trojan if there was one.

My Sweet Lord

Only sometime back, a learned, a little eccentric but very much lovable cousin of mine exclaimed that the celebrated saint Narsi Mehta was not really a saint. Though used to him springing verbal surprises now and then, the comment on Narsi Mehta became all the more difficult to digest when one considered that the commentator was someone who fancied himself a devout Hindu. Prodded for reason, my cousin had a simple explanation – A saint does not ask anything from God. But Narsi Mehta disturbed Krishna frequently, sometimes making Him come down as Shyamal Das to pay off his debt or to make him come with Maayro for his daughter. How could a person, who ‘used’ God so materially, be a true saint?

Frankly, while I try to see merit in what my cousin had to say, my empathy for his thoughts stops with my belief that there can be no one way to approach Him. While Loving God for His own sake is arguably one of the highest forms of devotion, such selfless Love is more aspirational than real for the layman. 

With passage of time, what was once new becomes integral and at times, memories of yore get erased altogether. For the practising Hindu, who takes joy in the tales of Shabari’s berries or upholding of Draupadi’s honour, it may be slightly jarring to realise and accept that none of these tales, which entail God with the warmest human qualities, formed part of the original epics. Valmiki Ramayana only mentions that Shabari treated Rama & Lakshmana as venerable guests. The heart touching tale of Rama consuming her half eaten berries form a part of narrative in the Padma Purana, which was a much later creation. Likewise, the critical edition of Mahabharata has Draupadi’s honour being saved through a miracle, i.e., a saree once removed was replaced with another saree. Here, Draupadi had appealed to the higher powers, throwing her hands open in the skies and the skies had responded. Her heart rending appeal of Krishna and His making the saree become endless is but a later edition.

Iravati Karwe in her authoritative tomes, have cast doubts over the existence of Bhagvad Gita as a single text. Contending that the nature of the first six chapters are radically different from the later twelve, she argues that while the former gel with overall narrative of the Mahabharata, the latter are only later additions, put by proponents of Bhakti. 

Prof Karwe and many others seem to have little sympathy for Bhakti as an emotion for they contend that Bhakti transferred the onus of activity from self to God and by default, promoted fatalism and a passive avoidance of assertive activity. Prof Karwe outlines the achievements made in the Vedic era and contrasts them with the saga of defeats and compromises made in the medieval ages and tacitly holds preponderance of Bhakti for the passivity of the Indian people.

While the facts presented by Prof Karwe could be incontrovertible, the conclusions may only be partly true. Bhakti as a philosophy in India gained prominence in the North with the formal composition of various Puranas around the Gupta reign and with the devotional outpourings of the 12 Vaishnava Alwars and 63 Shaiva Nayanars, in the Southern parts of the country, around 7^th-8^th century CE.

But what could have caused this later development of Hinduism?

Going back to the hoary past looking for answers in Vedic literature, one is stuck by the societal obsession with maintaining order. A king had to uphold dharma so that it could rain on time, sacrifices had to be performed so that the gods could bless with grains, cows and sons, offerings had to be made so that the gods could become powerful enough to bless! Truly, while awe and devotion to the heavenly powers are all pervading in the Vedas, it could seem that many a times, the relation between gods and humans was transactional. If the humans did not perform sacrifices on time, the gods would lose power and the danavas would gain. And if the gods became weaker, the humans would suffer in form of draught and poverty. It is not very difficult to visualise as to why did the Vedic religion lost the laity’s attraction gradually. A religion, whose abstract metaphysics, while rich, became but a preserve of a few and the religion in practice, was seen as an agglomeration of rituals designed to uphold the cosmic order. An order so grand in scale that an individual could hardly visualise his role in it. The God became a distant deity, one to be feared and appeased, one who was too far removed to condone human frailties and embrace the shunned and the weak.

The gap which the Vedic literature could not fill was sought to be filled by our epics. Valmiki Ramayana was among the earliest texts which enumerated the merits of Bhakti and detailed how could a devotee attain God in various ways. Soon after, Puranas were composed, making God achievable through simple acts of śravaṇa (listening), kīrtana (group praising), smaraṇa (remembrance), seva (service), Archana (deity worship), vandana (Prayer), dāsya (servitude), sākhya (friendship), and ātma-nivedana (self-surrender).

If the scriptures themselves certify that even devotional love could be of so many varieties, how can we, as lesser mortals proclaim that one mode of worship is superior to the other?

Rationalists and atheists will of course argue that Religion and God are but inventions of a lost, weak and insecure human mind. Even if for arguments sake, we accept this contention as true, what difference does it make? I can be a witness to truth only the way I see it. And I can see God and His work manifest in countless forms all around. What need then I have to acquiesce to the ‘rational’ when it doesn’t make any sense to me?

While many sociologists and thinkers have tried to explain devotion as an ersatz relationship for a great loss / shortcoming in life, the view seems too cynical and uninformed. While it is true that a beaten soul tries to find solace in God, there are numerous instances where, the most materially blessed are into Him as much as a wandering mendicant is. Even for people, who strive to find God to make up for a loss, how could their devotion be any lesser? If even the rationalist looks towards his friends and family for succour when beaten, why would the one in trouble not approach Him, the only one who is all embracing, all loving and all forgiving.

We, the Hindus have often been accused of being very materialistic even with regards to our love for God, i.e., our prayers and hymns are full of demands on Gods. While that is true, what could be more shocking for the puritans is the acceptability of abuse as a form of worship! Though dying out now, even a few decades back, the devout was not above engaging in Ninda Stuti, abusing God for the blessings he did not shower. While scandalising for many, it does make sense. My personal God is the one with whom I have multiple connections; of a child, a friend, a parent, a lover, a servant and even a master (God being the dasa of the Bhakta). If endowed with so much of power, it would be foolish not to exercise it and remind God of his duties towards me!

Then, what wrong did poor Narsi Mehta commit? Even more in his defence, he did not even ask for anything from his Krishna. And if Krishna gave of His own will, how could Narsi Mehta refuse? J

On a more serious note, who in his senses, having even once drunk the nectar of His Grace, would not want to be a Rabia and proclaim:

"O God! If I worship You for fear of Hell, burn me in Hell,

and if I worship You in hope of Paradise, exclude me from Paradise.
But if I worship You for Your Own sake,
grudge me not Your everlasting Beauty.”

Or be a Raskhan and cry aloud:

“Make me but a cowherd of Gokul, if I were to be born a human again,

A cow in Nand’s herds, if am to be an animal

If I were to be a lifeless stone only, be it a stone of the mountain you held aloft

I will become a bird, if that be your wish, my Lord. Let me then dwell on but a little branch, of Your Kadamba on the banks of Your Kalindi.”

I do not aspire to be a Karraikkal Amma who climbed Kailasha on her head to see You; I do not desire to be a Meera who left everything behind to be with You; I cannot dare to be like Akka Mahadevi, who in her blissful state, discarded even her robes; nay, I cannot be like any of those whose tales make us believe that You are achievable. Without Your Grace, I cannot even move a step on the path to achieve You.  Allow me that much of Grace, O Lord, that when I think of You, I think of only You and no one but You.