No Banana Republic, we are an Animal Farm

The more things change, the more they remain the same!

Animal Farm is one of my favorite books. Of the little I have read, this book contains amongst the sharpest of satires. While funny in patches, I find Animal Farm to be a dark book. Dark because it talks of futility of hope, of how the masses get cheated again and again. Long back, Bharatmuni had codified the structure of fictional narratives. As per Natyashastra, each tale had to have a hero, a villain and unsurmountable odds. Yet, the tale could have no ending but a happy one. Not surprisingly, each of our ancient and not-so-ancient tales has good vanquishing evil. If not absolutely happy, at the very least, the closure is with hope of a better tomorrow.

Books like Animal Farm and 1984 run against the very basic grain of a kavya. Yet, they are probably much closer to life. After all, have not a vast majority of masses been born, have lived and died in misery with no ‘happy ending’ for them. Still, against all our awareness of stark realities, we like to be hopeful for it is probably the hope of a better future, if not for us, for our future generations which keeps us going. This may precisely be the reason why, while enjoying tales like that of the ‘Animal Farm’, we still like to believe that those are but flights of fantasy and reality can never be that bleak, that harsh!

As humans, we laugh at ostriches for burying their heads in sand in face of danger. We get amused when pigeons close their eyes when scared of snakes, thinking that the snake can no longer see it. But, these are simply base reactions driven by an urge for self-preservation. Among human beings, while children may close their eyes when scared, ‘mature’ adult may adopt a mode of denial, refusing to accept what stares them in their eyes, breathes down or grasp them by their necks. Some others, who are more directly impacted, react even more strongly and start believing that the tormentor is not really a tormentor but is doing what he is doing for a greater good.

If and only if, life was as it is hoped!

This intermittent blogger has previously criticised Arvind Kejriwal for betraying the hope of a people who were looking for a systemic change. This blogger, while being an unabashed Hindu Nationalist, has in his previous posts displayed an uneasiness with Narendra Modi. Yet, this same person had voted for the BJP and was ecstatic when results were out, simply because any alternative seemed better than the shame of a Government which had been ruling India for the last decade.

While the vote against UPA remains valid, what has been validated even more strongly are the reservations against Narendra Modi. What did India vote for? Among many other things, a promise for vyavastha parivartan, where Nation comes first, where the Government governs for the benefit of people, where old elites are trashed into dustbins of history, where a citizen is empowered enough to mould his/her own future.

But, what have we got? A thespian who only talks - in acronyms, alliterating, gloating on his supposed greatness, all the while searching for a new stage to perform? Arvind Kejriwal is condemned for indulging in theatrics and achieving little in his 49 days in power. While Arvind is justifiably condemned for having cheated the public, if the same standards of measuring output get applied, Narendra Modi’s government comes out much worse.

For a set of people who believed that UPA polluted India by its very existence, finding humungous merits in the latter’s acts has been amazingly easy. Be it the bigger issues like Aadhaar, Direct Benefit Transfer, Land-swap agreement, GST, disinvestment, FDIs in certain sectors, recovery of black money, nuclear deal with US or relatively smaller issues like declassification of the Henderson Brook Report on China War, Justice Mukherjee’s report on Netaji’s disappearance or investigation of cases of corruption (including those involving the Nation’s son-in-law), the Modi-led BJP has both spoken and acted precisely like its predecessor. And we are not even talking of going back on core agendas like Kashmir. From talking of a Congress-mukt Bharat, we now have the reality of Modi sharing toast with Sonia Gandhi on a high table. Well, the Vajpayee Government always offered Sonia Gandhi respect and space far more than what was constitutionally required. Modi is simply carrying on with the tradition. And had not the ruler pigs in Animal Farm later made peace and partnered with those very humans they had rebelled against?

How morally bankrupt this Government is if after opposing UPA’s policies for the last 1 decade, it adopted them in a duration less than what it takes us to blink? On top of the chain of turnarounds, this Government is too smug, too arrogant, too drunk on its power, to offer even a fig leaf of an excuse for its countless turn-arounds! Today, if it really believes that all its U-turns are for the benefit of the Nation, then why was it stonewalling and protesting against UPA on these very moves? Is not then, as the Congress alleges, the BJP equally responsible for the rut India was in, for the last few years? Which U-turn are we looking at next? A 'Promotion of Communal Violence Bill' because it is good for the Nation? Many of us would argue that the BJP became aware of realities once it came to power. That it is in fact a testimony to its greatness that it is carrying on with those policies which it had opposed. This argument does not hold any water for 1. the Indian Parliamentary system co-opts the opposition through various committees and standing groups where all details of any proposed legislation are analysed, 2. any bill is presented much before it is debated and even the Government of the day explains all provisions of any bill to the opposition, and 3. BJP leaders are no babe in the woods having been in power and in public sphere for years. And if they are, they are unfit to govern!

For decades, the Sangh Parivar and its various offshoots have detested Nehru (for all the right reasons, I would add). While they opposed Gandhi initially, in the last two decades or so, he has been incorporated in their phalanx of venerable National icons, to some extent out of expediency, but more because the Sangh does articulate the same thoughts as Gandhi on issues like Indian culture, conversions, morality, economy, etc.

However, while Gandhi has been co-opted, his most toxic and disastrous ‘gift’ to the Nation, Jawaharlal Nehru still remains (ostensibly) a hated figure for the Sangh. A second member of the dynasty who is hated by the Sangh Parivar, is Indira Gandhi, but in patches. The Indira of 1980-84 was not the strongly ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ Indira of 1969-77 but someone whose actions were much more to the liking of the Hindu right. It was not without reason that RSS volunteers worked primarily for the Congress(I) and not the Vajpayee led BJP in the 1984 polls. Nonetheless, the legacy of Indira (1969-1977) is too strong to overlook and is the very anti-thesis of many principles the Sangh Parivar stands for. Hence, she continues to be abhorred for her authoritarianism, her acts of weakening the edifice of institutions, in fact of the Nation, of her corrupt regime, of her cultivation of the very anti-Hindu Left, her socialism and of course, the emergency.

Strangely though, for all their visceral hatred for Nehru, Sangh/BJP leaders take great pride in recalling that Nehru had identified a young Vajpayee as a future Prime Minister and puff with pride when any of them get called ‘cast in Nehruvian mould’ or having a ‘Nehru like vision’. As such, may be it is not quite so surprising to see that the ‘chosen one’ of this very Sangh Parivar is emulating its two supposed pet hates. Like Nehru, our current Prime Minister believes that the world is his stage. And like the gullible public then believed that India’s international standing was because of Nehru, today too, people are getting drunk of a non-existent potion of India’s ‘enhanced’ stature in the world. Nehru allowed his personal predilection for communism overrule National interests. Here, Modi's government leaks info that Sujatha Singh was removed because she refused to keep the issue of Kim Davey (Purulia arms-drop) aside when dealing with Denmark. Why is that important? Because Modi had invited the Dane Prime Minister to Gujarat and his no-show on account the MEA's pressure on Denmark to resolve the Davey issue was a personal insult to Modi! So, non-arrival is a personal insult but hosting a fugitive and refusing to hand him over, is not? How so Nehruvian! 

Like Nehru, who seemed to believe that India was his personal fief and made unilateral concessions to other Nations, our current Prime Minister too seems to believe that the path to ‘statesmanship’ and a possible Nobel lies through being magnanimous with the Nation’s assets. What else can explain the unseemly haste in acceding to US demands on the nuclear deal, on food protection, on intellectual property rights, on cheap drugs for millions of poor? Maybe I am in a hopeless minority, but I could only cringe when the Indian Prime Minister seemed a tad too eager to appear ‘close’ to a lame duck POTUS without adequate reciprocation from the latter. How can then Obama be criticised for gratuitously sermonising on how should India be as a Nation? Nehru is the only Prime Minister who contributed to the sartorial taste of India. Now, after 50 long years, we have a Modi kurta to give company to a Nehru Jacket. Nehru was supposed to have his clothes laundered in Paris (maybe an archetypical tale meant to indicate Nehru’s deracination and taste for luxury). Our current Prime Minister is one up. Never to appear sans designer clothes, he now gives company to figures as illustrious as Hosni Mubarak in wearing suits embroidered with his name!

As regards emulating Indira Gandhi, does authoritarianism ring a bell? Still, for her legion of followers, India maiyya could do no wrong. For the countless Modibhaktas, at least on social media, Modi is a god who can do no wrong.

In any other land, a Prime Minister claiming that only 'personal chemistry' between leaders matter and 'commas and lines on papers do not', would have been laughed off. Strangely, while much attention has been focused on the Prime Minister's fashion sense, hardly any analyst has commented on the inanity of that particular statement. Seriously, how can an Indian Prime Minister even think that way when so many times have we been led on the garden path by more realistic foreign leaders?

I still believe that India is great Nation, that in spite of all its challenges and dysfunctionality, it is land blessed by the divine, by the presence (both past and current) of great souls. Why then do we have the type of rulers we have? And can we, the people escape blame for our rulers? How can Modi alone be blamed? Adulation is heady and self-serving. The sight of those hundreds of thousands of commoners thronging grounds in searing heat to see him, chanting his name with frenzy, wearing his masks, would make all but the really great feel that yes, I am indeed the messiah! Even now, when the last eight months of Modi rule has yielded little but song and dance, talk and more talk, people enamoured of Modi find little fault in their leader. Each U-turn gets rationalized and defended, at times with passion of fresh converts to the cause. And as far as the mainstream media is concerned, till the time the issue is Hindutva/secularism, there is little to find fault in the Government. In the run-up to General Elections 2014, on Modi being presented as an outsider to the Delhi establishment, this blogger had observed that if a person associated with the Delhi power structure for three decades and who also happened to be a 4 term Chief Minister could be termed as an outsider, then there would be hardly any ‘insider’ in the system. Sadly, I don’t find any joy in feeling vindicated.

We, the people, who have invested our hopes in Modi have a moral duty to be vigilant and ensure that our leaders don’t digress from those promises which made us vote for them. Our Nation will become great, we will become successful, not by defending the indefensible but by being demanding, questioning and forcing our leaders to perform. If we don’t, and continue to believe that all acts of our leaders are for our good, our fate will be no better and in all likelihood, much worse than those creatures of the proverbial Animal Farm.

Freedom of Speech! Anyone?

Many see the Charlie Hebdo massacre as an assault on freedom of speech. Hence, many publications worldwide decided to strike a blow for freedom by producing Charlie Hebron’s cartoons. India chatterati, not to be left behind, have spoken ominously of dark days for free speech in India. Op-eds, full of homilies on how Charlie Hebdo’s ideas have emerged stronger abound, when strangely, not a single Indian publication has reproduced those cartoons which triggered the murders. Even in the US, where free speech is soundly protected by law, most publications have resorted to reproducing the more benign of those cartoons.

If it is really about free speech and if the liberal really believe in standing in solidarity with the martyred magazine, should not they have reproduced each of those offensive caricatures? Some might argue that supporting the general idea does not mean supporting specifics. True. But in the given situation, where publications/opinion-makers would like others to believe that they are not scared, what better way of proving that by doing something which really counts. Many Indian leaders differed with Gandhi. Most did not believe that preparing salt from sea-water would win India freedom. Yet, when Gandhi was arrested, the only way people showed solidarity was by breaking the law to prepare salt. When a lathi blow would take one Satyagrahi down, another one would take the fallen’s place. Not long back, standing up in solidarity with Salman Rushdie meant excerpt-reading, calling him for conferences. Hence, by desisting from taking a meaningful stand, most publications are only indulging in lip service when they engage in sterile and meaningless talks on freedom of speech.

The general reaction of news channels, media houses, liberal-voices only prove that the Islamists have won. Mani Shankar Aiyar is not the only person who has justified the massacre. Many self-proclaimed liberal voices have alluded that Charlie Hebdo invited what befell them. Were they not xenophobic, Islamophobic, racist, blasphemous? Were their cartoons not devoid of artistic merit but crude caricatures designed to provoke? And, if even in this charged atmosphere, when support for those killed is at its crest, the champions of free speech are desisting from ‘offending’, is it too much to imagine that self-censorship of any opinion critical of Islam is only becoming more entrenched? For many years, ‘mainstream’ publications have shown a remarkable reluctance to offer a critique of Islamic fundamentalism. If an ISS or a Taliban does get criticized, it is on grounds of their supposed mis-interpretation of Islamic scriptures. Really? People who have no idea of what a Hadith is claiming to know Islam better than those who spend their entire life in studying Quran and the life of its Prophet? When the Church opposes the theory of evolution, liberals don’t claim that the former is ‘mis-interpreting’ Christianity. They rightly point out to the stupidity of the faithful’s holding on to an erroneous belief. Likewise, no amount of whitewashing can justify scriptural sanctions for untouchability in Hinduism. Hence, the ‘right-thinking’ people offer their critiques and speak of the need to reform and discard such offensive belief systems. Yet, when it comes to Islam, somehow, the fault always becomes that of the victim. Be it any part of the world, the Muslims get presented as a marginalized community, beset with image problems, more sinned rather than sinning and most importantly, whose each atrocity is a reaction of the weak – terrorism a result of western imperialism, geopolitics, murders and arson an outcome of offended feelings.

The Kouachi brothers have achieved internationally what Ilm-ud-din achieved in India about 85 years back. Like the Kouachi brothers, Ilm-ud-din decided to award the punishment for blasphemy to Rajpal for having penned Rangila Rasool (which incidentally was in response to Sita ka Chinala which depicted Goddess Sita as a prostitute) and killed the latter in a crowded Lahore bazaar in 1929. Jinnah, the arch-secularist (at least as per Indian liberals and LK Advani) fought the case for the murderer and lost. Ilm-ud-din was hung. But, till the time the trial was in progress, Muslim crowds would line up the roads between the jail and the court and shower Ilm-ud-din with rose petals. His funeral was attended by almost a million and eulogies given by, among others, another arch-secularist, Allama Iqbal. A mosque was built in his honour and even to this day, Ilm-ud-din is fondly remembered by the Pakistani masses as a Shaheed and a Ghazi (Islamic holy warrior). Rajpal’s murder, coming 3 years after Swami Shraddhanand’s assassination by Abdul Rashid, ensured that the fear of death dictated criticism of Islam in India. Though much maligned (and in a way undeserving of such praise), the RSS and its offshoots or even the Hindu Mahasabha never dared to criticize the Prophet and Islam the way Arya Samaj had done in their publications. Even someone like AG Noorani, the pen-wielding Islamic fundamentalist who can trace Islamophobia in almost anything, would be hard-pressed to affix such blame on the Sangh Parivar.

If current reactions are anything to go by, the ‘Ghazi’ Kouachi brothers have ensured that even the more virulent critics of Islam will think multiple times before committing ‘blasphemy’. We will see and hear more on why and how Islamic atrocities are result of deliberate provocation of Muslims and how the victims of Islamic violence deserved their fate. So, at least, the Kouachi brothers have neither killed nor died in vain. They have ensured that the Quranic punishment for blasphemy has become mainstream!

While even the idea that someone needs to be killed because he/she wrote something offensive is revolting, the holier-than-thou approach of Indian fiberals (fake liberals) is simply nauseating. By seeking to equate people protesting against PK or against MF Hussain’s paintings with the murderers, our fiberals are only displaying their depths of intellectual corruption. But seriously, what can really be expected from a bunch of people who prefer to call Kashmiris driven out of their homes as migrants while calling a rich, resourceful painter who voluntarily acquired Qatari citizen (of course, a most liberal Nation), an exile? Or is it that that Chaupat Raja of Andher Nagari is the real icon of the fiberals? It would seem so, for it was only in Andher Nagari that each crime, irrespective of gravity, had a similar punishment. So, how are our conscience keepers wrong when they bay for the blood of ‘right-wing’ ‘loonies’ who like their Islamic counterparts go around shooting, stabbing, demonstrating in millions, attacking Nations, fighting wars, enslaving people, conducting massacres, forced conversions, punishing for blasphemy, yada yada. Yet, the similarities must stop. While the ISS and RSS are two sides of the same coin, each act of ISS is justified while the existence itself of RSS is liberal blasphemy.

Section 295(A) of the Indian Penal Code, which our fiberals want to be clamped on each right-wing loony is actually Jinnah’s gift to India. In the aftermath of Ilm-ud-din’s hanging, Jinnah prevailed upon the British Government to introduce this Section to make offending religious sensibilities a crime. Read the op-eds on ‘hate speech’. Our fiberals want liberal use of this section to clamp down on Hindutvavadis. So much so for freedom of speech.

While the fiberals do want freedom of speech for books banned under protests from the Hindutvavadis, not so strangely, they are supportive of bans on books seen as critical of Islam. ‘Understanding Islam through Hadis’, ‘Islam – A Concept of Political World Invasion’ are only two among the many books deemed inflammatory and banned by Governments to indifference or active support of the fiberals. Yet, let us move a little away from religion. Indian press has, unfortunately, has hardly taken a principled stand on the issue of free speech. Not long back, a Marathi play, Mee Nathuram Godse Boltoye was banned by NDA 1. Forget about campaigning against this ban, the fiberals led a campaign for this ban. More recently, Sakshi Maharaj (otherwise a convicted criminal garbed in saffron) was virtually lynched for pointing out the patriotism underlying Nathuram’s murder of Gandhi. The ‘Polyester Prince’ remains unofficially banned and so does the ‘Descent of Air India’. Any campaign in their favour?

The Indian fiberals has reduced ‘Freedom of Speech’ to a tool of subjugation. They decide on what ‘deserves’ to be free and what is profane. No wonder ideas and speech are under attack!