No – You are not allowed to have an opinion!

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Evelyn Beatrice Hall, (1868 – after 1939) on Voltaire

If Sagarika Ghose will ever be remembered, it is likely for her coinage of the term Internet Hindu. In no time, this moniker was adopted by those journalists & commentators who had been finding it more and more difficult to counter opinions, queries and comments posed by people who seemed to be educated, well off, passionate of their beliefs and impatient of what they saw as a duplicitous and insensitive approach of the Government and chattering classes to their concern. With a pejorative for those, who could otherwise not be castigated as Fascists or Nazis, the commentators now had a ready term of reference to all those who dared questioning them on matters of Nationalism and Secularism (the way it is practiced in India)

One might argue that a moniker is not pejorative by default. Certainly - but only when it is adopted by the concerned Group/Individual itself. If awarded by others, particularly those who stand at the opposite spectrum, monikers are by default, pejorative. There is nothing endearing about the terms knickerwallah, behenji types, babalog or faggot; the same holds true for the term Internet Hindu.

But why this disdain for such people? After all, it is the same ilk of intellectuals who proclaim their right to speak the unpalatable ‘truth’. Truth may be as they see it, but for others having a different frame of reference, that ‘truth’ may be very different. So, why do otherwise civilized people practice this apartheid and untouchability to those who hold diverse views? Why do those, who believe that they have the special right to question, to comment and to sermonize, react with visceral hatred towards those who dare question and comment on them?

An easy explanation would be - mere intellectual snobbery. Since people who question and opine do not belong to the hallowed privileged circles to which the questioned belong, outrage is the natural expression of the latter who feel trespassed upon! Result is invectives galore! A question may arise on how can people gain access to these circles of privilege? Not easy certainly; for birth, upbringing and schooling, which provides one with reference-able connections is a must. The other requirement is mirroring of articulated opinions. If it seems too far fetched, a cursory look at the process by which Ramchandra Guha was anointed with celebrity-hood should put Doubting Thomas’s to rest. Guha is today recognized as amongst the front ranking modern historians and a leading intellectual of our times. Hence, to no surprise, the ubiquitous Mr Guha can be found holding forth on a variety of topics, both in the print and visual media and seminars of all sorts, where he is introduced as a leading historian.

Nothing wrong in that. Mr Guha has indeed written a well received book ‘India After Gandhi’ (Ref Reviews). Quite a turn from being an unknown scholar of Cricket and someone whose formidable aunt Dharma Kumar, had apparently despaired of (Ref: Foreword - Civil Lines). However, Mr Guha is not a trained Historian. He graduated from St. Stephen's College with a BA degree in Economics in 1977 and completed a Master's degree from the Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi. He then enrolled at the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta (for a Fellowship program (equivalent to a Ph.D) on the social history of forestry in Uttaranchal, focusing on the Chipko movement.

Before I am accused of being cussed in finding issues with an honorific, let me please refer to the instances of SR Goel and Koenraad Elst. These names may not ring familiar to most except for the intelligentsia and a small section of the Internet Hindus. Koenraad Elst is a Belgian who has written extensively on the Hindu Nationalist movement and history of medieval India. Elst graduated in Indology, Sinology and Philosophy at the Catholic University of Leuven and went on to obtain a Ph.D. from the same university on Hindu revivalism and Hindu reform movements. Goel graduated in History and was a Persian and Sanskrit Scholar. He leveraged his skills in producing a formidable body of work, quite of lot of which were self published. In spite of their importance to the Nationalist narrative, neither of them is given the honorific of a Historian. The reason offered – ‘They are not history scholars, they did not train under a professional historian, their work is not peer reviewed…’

Certainly they are more qualified than Mr Guha to write on history by virtue of their education and entire  body of work. But being outsiders, they are grudgingly introduced as 'writers' and not 'historians', the way Mr Guha is. Readers are requested to also refer to RISA Lila. This seminal piece by Rajiv Malhotra succinctly explains the power play which defines the academia narrative.

As we can see, reasons get invented to exclude rather than to include. The bogey of Internet Hindu has been raised on account of two reasons. One – those who question do not belong; Two, there is no better way to discredit those who question by attributing motives and demeaning them. The latter serves two purposes, firstly, queries from those who are seen as discredited do not merit a response. Secondly, a pejorative image will deter others from joining this hated group.

The rage of Guhas and Ghoses of the world are difficult to understand. The so-called Internet Hindus are merely expressing those opinions which they believe have been smothered by the mainstream media. Most of these comments choose to challenge and seek answers from those who have cartelized public discourse in our country. True, some of it may be abusive but is internet abuse limited to the Nationalist alone? Pursue any forum and you will find that invectives spout from even those who claim to swear by Indian secularism.

Why then this demonization of the Right? In one of his chapters of his recent book, excerpts of which were published in Outlook, Guha has launched a broadside against whosoever comments on his works in less than flattering a manner. Guha has neatly compartmentalized such reactions as being either being hurt, complaining, angry, paranoid, or abusive. While abusive comments are certainly not welcome, Mr Guha complaints encompasses even those comments which are hurt, complaining, angry or paranoid. Even with regards to abuse, quite a few of the comments which he presents as being abusive are benign when compared to his instant act of branding the 'others' as lesser people. For a person ostensibly belonging to an enlightened tribe where caste does not exist, Mr Guha doesn’t desist from giving a caste to this breed of Internet Hindus. By his definition, they are invariably Upper Caste. Even if this were to be true, how does it de-legitimise their right to offer their opinion on something published/presented for public consumption? If mere caste was a criterion, then our entire independence movement could be dismissed as mere expression of an upper caste upper class angst. While the post 1857 Independence movement till before early twentieth century almost exclusively upper caste, upper class in nature, even the later leaders of this movement generally belonged to the upper crust of society. Not surprisingly, for in any society, movements for change are led by groups which have an accumulated social capital and have a greater access to resources.

The last two decades have seen the space for Nationalist Hindu narrative shrinking. Unlike the 80s and the early 90s, when a host of intellectuals had no qualms in articulating the Rightist ideological thoughts, the last decade in particular has seen a rapid desiccation of such works. The constant demonization and vilification of those who adhere to and articulate a polity at odds with the Nehruvian view of India has resulted in a scenario where the average Nationalist has no option but to recourse to Internet to present his thoughts. Faced with the prospect of battling a disparate leaderless group of people who were confident and analytical enough to question incisively, the likes of Ghose and Guha have resorted to McCarthyism. While Ghose’s fulminations on the tribe of Internet Hindus can only be of limited impact, the intellectual spin given by the likes of Guha are dangerous for they serve to limit our expression to what has been defined as ‘proper’ by the intelligentsia. This intelligentsia has decreed to itself, the right to define, to allege, to judge and to execute. Any uncomfortable question gets declared as abuse and anyone who does not conform, a reactionary.

While consistency was never a strong point for our intelligentsia, they having developed greater confidence in their ability to mould the ‘acceptable’, have jettisoned any pretense of maintaining a ‘balance’ in the narrative.

A column, a book, a quote, an interview – all are meant for public consumption. The general public has a right to like or dislike, accept or reject a viewpoint. How and why are then these two groups treated so differently? Why cannot the commentators accept that both bouquets and brickbats go hand in hand and demonizing those who offer brickbats only, indicates a stunted intellectual growth of the able commentator. A normal and reasonable people would respect the right of others to possess and to articulate contrary opinions. If a significant section of the population feels that the mainstream discourse is not reflective of his/her concerns, why not allow and encourage those forums where they can make themselves heard and in many’s words ‘to vent their spleen’? Did not the British Government act as a mid-wife for the Indian National Congress precisely for the same reason? But no, if Mr Guha and others of his tribe have their way, no such forum is to be provided to anyone who digresses from what has been defined for thought and for speech.

Once, people who disagreed with the Church were declared heretics and burnt on the Cross. With such act snot being possible today, the next best approach of intellectual lynching has been successfully adopted by large sections of our opinion makers. Declare a person a Fascist, a Nazi, a reactionary, a conservative, a fundamentalist, a fanatic and now, an Internet Hindu, and you are now secure from the duty of answering any question, howsoever uncomfortable it might be.

The saga of calumny and vilification of alternate viewpoints by Guha and his ilk hits the very basis of our democracy for the end intent of these acts are to define and control our thoughts. It may be interesting to note that while this intelligentsia has virtually asked for banning of the Internet Hindu from public consciousness, majority of these Internet Hindus have only asked for debates and answers and not a banishment of the Ramchandra Guhas of the world. But do the torch-bearers of this ideology of hate and exclusion realize that? For them, only one commandment matters: No – You are not allowed to have an opinion!