Who wants development?

Young India voted for development! People want development! India wants development! Development over divisive politics! Development over polarisation!

Media’s urge to simplify yet sensationalise, leads to catchy phrases, one-liners and homilies.  While good for dazzling headlines, on most occasions, these are but a lazy apology of any analysis. Yet, in what is reflective of the times we live in, large sections of the ‘thinking’ population seem to buy whatever is peddled in the name of ‘news’ which on most occasions are views formed of rigid ideologies and half-baked analysis.

So, even the most serious of issues is reduced to sloganeering – rising complaints of rape means India has a ‘rape culture’ even when investigative analysis from The Hindu shows that a large number of complaints being lodged today relate to minors eloping and love/live-in going bad.  A series of foreign visits by the Prime Minister get hailed as symptomatic of India’s claiming its ‘rightful’ place in the galaxy of nations, when there is no outcome which could support such delusion. A Laloo Prasad Yadav still gets spoken of as the Railway turnaround man, when his financial jugglery and mismanagement only pushed Railways to greater decline. The list is endless.  The media persists in simplifying issues even if it means extreme dumbing down, because a simple message is easy to communicate.

Other than rare circumstances, no elections are won or lost on a single issue alone.  UPA did not win 2004 because of India Shining alone. Likewise, BJP did not win on the plank of economic development alone.  Development yes, economic development alone, no! Some voted in hope of developing more secure borders, some for a less corrupt polity, some for Hindutva, some for a better life. The way National independence meant different things to different people, the same way, people voting for change expected different things from both the victors and losers.

Yet, for argument’s sake, let us assume that the Indian masses voted for economic development alone. Now in the last six months, the country has experienced quite a lot of Modi. Modi coined acronyms, Modi - the pop star, Modi – the charmer, Modi – the u-turn man, the silent-on-Sangh-Parivar-atrocities Modi, yada yada. These days, the MSM is brims over with wails on how the loony fringe (read RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal, any Hindutva related organization) is diluting Government’s focus on development. Some more voices menacingly speak of how this is the ‘real’ agenda, development being hogwash! Some others bemoan that while the country voted for and is waiting for ‘development’, Modi government is sidestepping its responsibilities. That rather than ‘divisive issues’ getting sidelined, they are dominating ‘development’.

Again, for argument’s sake, let us assume that the media-imagined binaries do exist. Let us suspend our judgement and agree to the ominous assertion that what is not false must necessarily be true, that that is not yet must certainly be no. Let us, go with the MSM assertions since it has abrogated to itself, the right to act as the Nation’s moral guardian (even if morality is otherwise akin to a swear word).

Having accepted each of MSM’s assertion, can we ask them (MSM) if they are interested in development?

No one can blame MSM of lacking guts when it comes to pushing its agenda or campaigning for issues which are close to its heart. Be it the asinine Aman ki Asha or the venomous coverage of riots. For the last few months, the MSM has sharpened its missionary zeal to ‘discover’ attacks on secularism. No issue can be declared minor or irrelevant when the ‘idea of India’ is at stake and so, for months now, we have had apoplectic chatterati, screaming till they are blue in the face, that the RSS (worse than ISIS) is destroying secularism. Whether it is a case of a pastor clashing with a drunk marriage party, a suspected case of arson at a church, change of ICHR head, off-the-cuff remarks on history by sundry personalities, usage of some not-so-kosher terms by a minister, praise of an assassin, re-conversions, the MSM has admirably (in its own way) held aloft the flagging flag of secularism.

Pray, if the MSM is really interested in economic development, which is claims is getting sidestepped, where exactly is its outrage? When has it tried to put Modi Government on mat on the issue of development? This Government, after railing against UPA policies, has taken enough u-turns to resemble a UPA 3 government. A large number of questionable actions taken by this Government (changing rules for individuals, tinkering with railway fares through executive orders, gas pricing, political appointees in constitutional posts, etc.) are sought to be justified on specious grounds that the previous governments did the same. This government is following those UPA policies which it vehemently opposed when in opposition and now claims that those are silver bullets for economic growth. Which section of MSM has tried to put Modi on mat for it? If what NDA professes now is indeed true, why should it not be held equally accountable (as UPA) for those lost years of India’s growth? Which news anchor is trying to dissect the impact of changes in land acquisition bill and whether an ordinance was required to push this change?

A question to the MSM – if it is indeed true that the common man is more interested in finding a livelihood than anything else, is the MSM not guilty of batting for causes which are not a primary concern for this archetypical common man? How does it matter then, to a mill-worker or a CEO if Godse was a patriot or a bloodthirsty assassin? Anyway, since the MSM has made it very clear that rules which apply to the Hindus to not apply for the so-called minorities, let us grant it to them that while a Bhindranwale can be considered a martyr, an Afzal Guru an innocent victim of the oppressive Indian state, any Hindu opinion, unless validated and approved by the self-professed liberals, is by default communal, divisive and regressive. Hence, it is understandably welcome if a Muslim is concerned about Babri but abomination that a Hindu feels about Ramjanmabhoomi.

Still, even when allowing for all its ideological predilections, the MSM cannot be excused for not holding Modi accountable for any issue other than ‘secularism’. By ignoring ‘developmental’ issues and focusing on esoteric ideas, the MSM is letting the Modi government off the hook. A defense of secularism (even if it is at its most perverted) does not mean that Modi should not be questioned as vehemently for ‘real’ issues.

If only people blaming NDA for moving away from the development plank were themselves interested in development!

Na-Re Modi

That Modi is a polarizing figure is a self evident truth. What is not so clear is the reason this man has been demonized so much. Gujarat has had a history of ghastly communal riots and the carnage of 2002 still pales when compared to the 1969 Ahmedabad riots which were triggered by massacre of cows and temple priest’s alongwith attack on Rath Yatra. Even otherwise, more than a quarter of casualties in the riots were Hindus, clearly indicating that it was far, far from a much abused word ‘pogrom’ and with due respect to the unfortunate dead, our intelligentsia should study Rwanda, Cambodia, Yugoslavia or our own medieval and modern history (partition) to understand what the genocide or a pogrom means.

Still, the image of Modi as the ‘Hindu Hriday Samrat’ was justified to the extent that he was aggressive with regards to the cause of the riots and even otherwise, the aggressive campaign of the NGO –ECI brigade resulted in a consolidation of Nationalist forces behind Modi, so much so that even the Congress did not fight the election on the plank of riots. Very soon, however, it became amply clear that Modi had little sympathies for Hindutva, in spite of his life long career in the RSS. Not only were the VHP office bearers marginalized, very soon, people started finding themselves behind bars in riot related cases. Not only were the likes of Keshubhai Patel and Rana pushed to margins, erstwhile foot soldiers like Gordhan Zadaphia became sworn enemies of Modi. Modi’s impatience with a Hindutva agenda became all the more clear when, on his orders, municipal authorities demolished scores of temples but left mosques and dargahs untouched, after outbreak of Muslim violence in Vadodara. It is indeed a miracle, that the VHP, which had active units in each of Gujarat’s 10,000 odd towns and villages till a decade back, seems like a spent force today.

Yet, in spite of having marginalized the RSS and its affiliates, including the powerful Bharatiya Kisan Sangh, Modi won a spectacular mandate once again in 2007. This mandate indicated that the mass’s adoration of Modi had moved beyond his macho image to his development mantra. Today, with almost everyone signing paeans to Modi’s commitment to development, it would be churlish to deny that Modi has emerged as a formidable champion of developmental politics. To say that Gujaratis’ have always been industrious and that Modi has no role to play in development simply indicates an envious mindset for if nothing else, the ever-conscious of profits Gujarati would be more aware than you and me if Modi had indeed made a difference to their pursuit of prosperity.

Interestingly, in we look at the 2007 elections dispassionately, we will find that the elections were considered tough for him on account of the strident anti Modi position taken by the VHP, formation of the rebel BJP, by the dissents led by Gordhan Zadaphia and the presence of Uma Bharti’s Lok Janshakti, which managed to attract a significant number of sitting MLAs as candidates for the coming polls. However, as elections neared, Ashok Singhal declared that he had no differences with Modi and said VHP would campaign for Hindutva leaning candidates, Uma Bharti withdrew her candidates (though some still fought as independents) and silently, the RSS volunteers campaigned for Modi and Modi alone. Why did it happen? After suffering marginalization and insults for 4 years, it was probably a right time for the Sangh to show Modi that the latter was not indispensable and his dreams of ruling Gujarat hinged on the support of those he had been dismissing as the rustic cousins. However, nothing of this sort happened and Modi was blessed with Sangh support yet again. In all likelihood, the Sangh would have calculated that for a party demoralized with loss of power in 2004 General Elections and facing ideological confusion post Advani’s attempts to turn secular, the loss of Gujarat would have been a body blow to the morale of its activists. Maybe, there was some other commitment of Modi to ‘mend’ his way which became the deciding factor for Sangh to throw its weight behind the son who had wandered, rather than attempting a ‘cutting the nose to spite the face’ act.

To be fair to Modi, while the RSS, the VHP and numerous other Sangh Parivar affiliates continue to be marginalized in Gujarat, there had not been any open confrontation between his Government and others. That an open dissident like Dr Kanubhai Kalsaria still continues as a BJP MLA, probably would indicate that some sort of arrangement between Modi and the Sangh had been in place.

However, Modi’s antics in the last few weeks seem to indicate the limitations of such truces. Frankly, for an ambitious man like Modi, anything less than the Prime Ministership would be an affront to his own perception of his capabilities and indispensability and like his one time mentor LK Advani, Modi has attempted to turn a new leaf and be seen as a moderate, capable of winning acceptability from all sections of society. While this may or this may not fit in the Sangh’s scheme of things, which pushed the arch moderate Vajpayee to the center stage when he had been languishing on the margins for years, knowing well his proclivity to moderation, what certainly may not fit the Sangh’s worldview is his open defiance of the BJP Leadership. Ironically, it Modi becomes aggressively intolerant of the Sangh and more open in his defiance, he may still achieve what his Sadbhavna fast failed to – endorsement of the chattering classes. 

The media would like us to believe that Modi is immensely popular among the cadre while having limited appeal to voters outside Gujarat. While the latter may be true, considering that the BJP’s performance hasn’t really peaked where he campaigned, one wonders if the cadres will really be as enamored of Modi if more and more of them become aware that the Hindu Nationalist Modi took birth and died in 2002. The Modi we have today would probably be closest to a refined male version of Mrs Indira Gandhi – insecure, scheming, autocratic but resolute and strong – seen as a leader who delivers! For a Nation plagued with vapid leaders, a strong leader has its attractions. At the same time, one cannot discount the fact that for all her positive contributions, Indira stands heads and shoulders above all others in having succeeded in subverting the system and compromising our Constitution. Yet, for all her faults, Indira did not ditch the people she claimed she stood for. Till the very end, she remained steadfast to the people who stood by her and for those who stood for her. Here in Modi, we may be faced with a leader who cares little for those who adore him and certainly one, who has left those behind who stood for him, when it mattered the most.

Promotion of Communal Violence Bill

Centuries ago, by the time Islamic Sultanates had managed to exercise their supremacy over Gangetic India, there arose a peculiar conflict – of bands of sanyasis being beaten and robbed by bands of fakirs. If one wonders on what made these fakirs act so violently towards sanyasis, the answer lies in three basic facts:

·      Fakirs were considered above the law on most matters

·      With the imposition of Jaziya on Hindu lands, carrying arms had become the sole prerogative of Muslims, with the only exceptions being Hindu noblemen / warriors being in direct service to the emperor

·      Crimes by Muslims against the kaffirs carried little censure as compared to crimes by Muslims against fellow Muslims and worse, crimes by Hindus against Muslims

Anyways, the drift continued for a couple of centuries only being broken in phases where the Muslim rule weakened. However, with the consolidation of Akbar’s rule, jaziya was first temporarily and then permanently removed and Akbar, on representation by various sanyasi orders, allowed them to carry arms and act in self defense. Very soon, the Sanyasis found themselves on surer footing compared to fakirs and we had more militant sanyasi orders coming into being. Things, of course, took a worse turn for sanyasis with the rule of Aurangzeb when the fakir order became bolder again but soon again, the rise of multiple revolts through the country weakened his Empire and the Mughal Empire was served a fatal body blow with the rise of Maratha Empire. 

And the impact of these changes – many sanyasi orders became equivalent to a band of brigands, collecting taxes from villages and zamindars in their area of operations and many a times, liquidating competing bands of sanyasis and fakirs. These sanyasi bands had become so powerful that even during the oppressive Islamic rule in Bengal, their writ run over large areas and later, the East India Company had had to fight pitched battles to get rid of the marauding bands.

But how are events which happened over the last few centuries relevant to us now? Plainly, because it reinforces the fading reality that without the fear of law, even the most humble and meek creatures can turn into bloodthirsty marauders. Had the fakirs been under the pale of law, the sanyasis, in most likelihood, would have continued to be away from acts of retributive violence. Likewise, if the sanyasis had been adequately controlled by local kings, it is unlikely that they would have turned to medieval version of local warlords.

Today, we are faced with the prospect of being thrust with a legislation, which will ensure that the identified ‘minority’ communities will be above the law while any act of the majority, which can even remotely be construed as damaging to the identified minority.

And who is this minority? Minority in a state – meaning Hindus and Buddhists in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, Muslims in all other states of the country and probably Christians in all states of the country other than the North Eastern states of Nagaland, Mizoram and Meghalaya. Even here, it is to the discretion of Jammu & Kashmir assembly if they do indeed decide to extend the law to the state.

Rather than delve into the point of weakening of the federal structure of our country on account of this legislation, let us only concentrate on the banality of assumptions which has moved the NAC driven UPA Government to introduce such legislation.

Assumption 1: The legislation assumes that minorities are minorities through the entire geographical / demographical area of the state and hence are always weak.  

Reality: Each state may have districts where the minority is in a majority, i.e., Malappuram and Manjeri in Kerala, Nagercoil in Tamil Nadu, Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh, Malegaon in Maharashtra, Murshidabad and Malda in West Bengal, Dhubri and Barpeta in Assam, Kishanganj and Purnea in Bihar, Rampur in Uttar Pradesh and so on. Likewise, if not in districts, many states have parliamentary and assembly constituencies where the minority is in a majority or towns / cities where this phenomenon can be observed. Further, each town has at least one locality where the so called minority is a majority. If we leave aside the question of base majority/minority, we have whole regions like Western UP, North Bihar, Lower Assam, Gangetic Bengal etc where the so called minority is around 40%-45% of the total population. If the Act defines minority at the macro level, should it not go deeper and define minority in a fairer and more relevant micro level.

Assumption 2: Numbers alone mean domination.

Reality: if the assumption were true, a handful of colonizers from Europe would not have ruled the world, 300 strong Muslim army would not have won the Battle of Badr, nor would Babur have won Panipat and Plassey would have seen Siraj-ud-daula victorious. A determined, organized and well resourced group with a definite goal is way more powerful that an larger group of vacuous and disparate individuals. It is not for nothing that one says, ‘Having One Lion in the army is better than having a million sheep’.

Assumption 3: It is always the minority which bears the brunt of the riots.

Reality: While this assumption is certainly true in countries like Bangladesh, which have only Hindu casualties whenever riots happen, one would be surprised to note that the so called majority community forms a disproportionately large proportion of the killed, hurt and displaced. Rather than delving too far into history, let us look at figures on riots in the last decade or so:

a.   Mumbai – 1993 - 575 Muslims and 275 Hindus (2:1)

b.   Malegaon – 2002 – 12 Muslims and 3 Hindus (4:1)

c.   Gujarat – 2004 – 794 Muslims and 254 Hindus (3:1)

d.   Marad – 2003 – 1 Muslim and 8 Hindus (1:8)

e.   Mau – 2005 – 2 Muslims and 10 Hindus (1:5)

f.     Aligarh – 2006 – 2 Muslims and 4 Hindus (1:2)

g.   Hyderabad – 2010 – 0 Muslims and 4 Hindus

h.   Deganga – 2010 – 0 mosques damaged and 4 temples burnt

In case riots are really one sided, one can wonder whether the number of dead from the ‘majority’ community means that they committed suicide only to give a bad name to the meek, peaceful minorities! And before anyone steps into point out that minority casualties are higher than the majority casualties in case of Bombay and Gujarat riots, one should account for the fact that normally an 80% strong majority would ensure that cent percent casualties are from the 20% minority or a the very most, a few collaterals in course of the one way blood bath. But one can see, reality is different. Higher number of Muslim casualties in Muslim dominated Malegaon was on account of police action on marauding mobs, yet again an indicator that better armed crowd can inflict more damage on a larger opposing mob.

Assumption 4: Riots are always instigated by the majority 

Reality: Majority of riots in the country have been instigated and led by the minorities. Even the arch liberal, Atal Bihari Vajpayee in his 1971 address to the Parliament, used home ministry data to buttress that point. But since 1971 is so last century – let us look at facts for the last 2 decades.

a.   Mumbai – 1993 – Destruction of Ganesh Idol in Bandra East

b.   Malegaon – 2002 – Procession protesting attack on Afghanistan turned violent

c.   Gujarat – 2004 – Godhra carnage

d.   Marad – 2003 – Unprovoked. Police inquiry pointed to a conspiracy to intimidate the Hindu ninority.

e.   Mau – 2005 – Attack on Ram Baraat procession

f.     Aligarh – 2006 – Attack on Bharat Milap procession

g.   Burhanpur – 2008 – Attack on Hanuman Rath

h.   Dhule – 2008 – Attack on Navratri Pandal

i.     Kandhamal – 2008 – Killing of Swami Laxmananand Saraswati

j.     Miraj – 2009 – Ganpati pandal depicting killing of Afzal Khan by Shivaji

k.   Bareilly – 2010 – Banned Tazia procession taken out through a prohibited route

l.     Hyderabad – 2010 – Removal of Hanuman Jayanti banners

m. Deganga 2010 – Unprovoked. Apparent Muslim anger at the upcoming Durga Puja celebrations

n.   Bharatpur – 2011 – Attack and arson on Gujjar homes following dispute on a public ground

Both the above lists can go on and on. 

All the right thinking citizens should ponder and evaluate if this proposed bill is indeed being driven by the noble intent of preventing communal violence? In its present form, the bill is certain to handle immunity from prosecution and retribution to a very organized, militant and belligerent ‘minority’ – which may not even be a minority in the true sense of the word.

The passage of this bill in its current form, where perpetrators and victims are defined by birth is the worst form of legal apartheid and can only lead to a situation where a cornered ‘majority’ may be forced to jettison its wavering belief in the intent and capability of its ruling classes to protect its basic rights to life and dignity.

Fight to Finish

‘Struggle’ is a peculiar Chinese invention combining intimidation, humiliation and sheer exhaustion. Briefly described, it is an intellectual gang-beating of one man by many, sometimes even thousands, in which the victim has no defense, even the truth…. The technique was a thing of utter simplicity: A fierce and pitiless crescendo of screams demanding that the victim confess, followed by raucous hoots of dissatisfaction with any answer he gave them… The Struggle was born in the thirties, when the communists first began making headway in great rural stretches of China. Developed over the years by trial and error, it became the standard technique of interrogating the landlords and their enemies who fell into the hands of rebellious peasants. There is a system and real rationale behind it all. The Communists were and remain very formalistic. A man must be made to confess before he is punished, even if his punishment has been decided beforehand. The captured landlord was pushed, shoved or carried to a handy open area and forced to kneel and bow his head as dozens or hundreds or thousands of peasants began surrounding him. Screamed at, insulted, slapped, spat upon, sometimes beaten, hopelessly confused and terrorized, no victim could hold out for long. ... There is never a time limit to a Struggle. It can go on indefinitely if the leaders of the game feel that not enough contrition has developed. .. a Struggle is rarely resolved quickly; that would be too easy. At the beginning, even if the victim tells the truth or grovellingly admits to any accusation hurled at him, his every word will be greeted with insults and shrieks of contradictions. … After three or four days the victim begins inventing sins he has never committed, hoping that an admission monstrous enough might win him a reprieve. After a week of Struggle, he is willing to go to any lengths. 

Source: Bao Ruo-wnag (Jean Pasgualini), Prisoner of Mao (New York, Penguin Books, 1976, 59)

.

Whatever ills may be attributed to our own liberal intelligentsia, they cannot be faulted on their commitment to the Red Book and their efforts to Indianise the war to dominate thinking prowess of a free Nation. Since India is a socialist democracy and not a ‘People’s’ Democracy, the way China is, there are of course, limits to what the leftists can do as far as replicating ‘Struggle’ in Indian context. Hence, while a physical ‘Struggle’ may not be feasible, a propaganda struggle is certainly within the realms of the doable. Like any struggle which requires an adversary and  foot soldiers to wage the war, the lines here too are clearly drawn – the feudal adversaries are those who can be called Nationalists, traditionalists, religious, law-abiding and those who believe in a culture defined way of life. The foot soldiers on the other hand are petty journalists, news anchors, ambitious politicians and their ilk – all guided by figures who may possess different backgrounds, but are brought together by their visceral hated of India.

In case such words seem out of place in our context and one may be moved to question if I am indeed talking about India, my request to the discerning observer would be to look around and judge for oneself, if the no-holds barred attack on Hindu Nationalism can qualify as anything less than a war fought with utmost application of Fascist principles.

The fact that the Indian Nation is a Hindu majority state cannot be wished away. Likewise, the fact that the majority of our population is religious and still retains its ties with its old cultural moorings is equally valid. That in times of struggle, people fall back upon religion and cultural totems for sustenance is another fact which social scientists of all hues will accept unquestioningly. Hence, it is not surprising that our Nation, with its tradition of deifying whatever it respects, considers the Land as a Divinity to be worshipped. Likewise, it shouldn’t surprise anyone to note that our freedom struggle was full of Hindu imagery and thoughts, right from Bankim Chandra to Gandhi. It was precisely this mooring to our cultural heritage that made independent India choose Sanskrit words and ancient motifs as its emblems and at the same time allowed Congressmen to associate with Nationalist organizations without guilt. 

However, things have changed and over the years and we now have a scenario where anything remotely associated to Hindu Religion or Culture is rabidly denounced as Communal. We have to bear witness to ridiculous scenes of icons being boycotted for hailing Narendra Modi’s model of development (though Modi is as away from being a Hindu Nationalist as possible), PILs being filed claiming dilution of Indian secularism when a bhoomi puja is conducted for commencing construction of High Court building, another crescendo of complaints that this secularism is compromised when mortal remains of a revered religious leader are draped in Indian tricolor, another controversy when the President professes her faith towards a religious sect - the list is endless and can go on and on.

It was not so long back that country was stuck by a series of bomb blasts. While none of the alleged perpetrators of these crimes have been punished till date, the entire investigative and judicial system seems to have zeroed in only on the so-called Hindu terror, which even if true, together has caused far lesser damage and casualties compared to even a single blast in Mumbai.

The entire state machinery, with able abetment of the press seems to have taken it upon itself to tar the RSS and associated Nationalist organizations with the polemical brush of communal terrorism. For a person to be declared an RSS wallah, it is enough to put a stop to his/her career, particularly if that person belongs to academia, performing fields, judiciary and bureaucracy. Since the pronouncements of all learned judges are not music to ears of our thought police, even as respected and upright judges as JS Verma and MN Venkatchalliah are today denounced for their ‘rightist’ leanings. While an AP Shah, whose only claim to fame is decriminalization of homosexuality, is feted as a progressive and right thinking judge, an erudite and thorough judge like Markendya Katju is dismissed as being sanctimonious and of donning  saffron behind his black robes.

One could imagine the furore it would have caused, had someone criticized the Nobel committee for having awarded the prize to Amartya Sen, solely on account of he being a leftist. Not surprisingly though, today’s vitiated atmosphere allows the Karnataka Governor to get away with a recommendation of not awarding a renowned literary figure only on account of his pro-Hindutva leanings. 

Works published by those scholars, who had in the past, spoken in support of the Ayodhya movement, are dismissed as communal rantings without even a cursory review, while dismissal of a noted danseuse from her official post is justified on account of her having sung in some function where some RSS leader was present. 

The closest this Nation has come to in organising mass movements in the last few years was around Anna Hazare’s fast for a Lokpal bill. Sadly, the fact that there was a Bharat Mata portrait, that Vande Ma Taram was chanted and that hawans were conducted, have proven to be proofs potent enough to have convinced our gullible friends that the entire event was stage managed by the RSS. What are these ‘secularists’ trying to convey? That any person who is a patriot is an RSS wallah or that the RSS has sole copyright over patriotism? Or more critically, is patriotism a vice or being religious and being moored to one's culture a taboo?

Are we far from that stage that mere whiff of association with our Gods, our temples and our forefathers, enough to cast aspersion on our commitment to democracy and civilization? Forget about us ever having a fresco of Rama in the Parliament or having Ganesha/Lakhsmi on our currency note, a re-evaluation of Gandhi will certainly show his to be a hardcore communalist.

While I may find lots of areas of improvement in RSS’s functioning, cannot deny that for good or bad, the RSS has occupied a banyan like presence in the sphere of Hindu Nationalism. Hence, any attack on the Hindu Right must necessarily mean an assault on the RSS and its associates. With allegations being thrown around thick and fast, it is but likely that even hardcore RSS supporters would find it more and more inconvenient to continue their association with the RSS. With the Government, Media and ‘civil society’ seemingly determined to finish off the RSS and the thought process which sustains it, it is likely that sometime in the near future, we may see a reappraisal of what happened in Tibet a few decades back.

These struggles were diabolically cruel criticism meetings where children were made to accuse their parents of imaginary crimes, where farmers were made to denounce and beat up their landlords; where pupils were made to degrade their teachers; where every shred of dignity in a person was torn to pieces by his people, his children and loved ones. Old lamas were made to have sex with prostitutes in public. And often, the accused was beaten, spat and urinated upon. Every act of degradation was heaped upon him – and it killed him in more ways than one. When someone was through in a thamzing session, no one ever spoke of him again. He was no martyr for the people, because the people had killed him. His death lay in the hands of those who honoured and remembered him; but in their guilt, the people tried to forget him and the shameful part they had played in his degradation. 

Source: Jamyang Norbu, Warriors of Tibet, 133) Warriors of Tibet: The Story of Aten and the Khampas' Fight for the Freedom of Their Country (originally titled Horseman in the Snow), Wisdom, 1987, Wisdom Pub