Facts or Faith?

This note has been late in coming, so late that the ‘news/issue’ is very much on the backburner after having held the Nation’s attention and breath for a few tense days. 

The historic verdict on Ayodhya was unexpected to state the least. What was not unexpected was the frothing, vitriolic reaction of the ‘progressive-liberal’ media which could not digest the court judgment, particularly its unanimous decision to handover the precise spot housing Ram Lalla idols to Ram Lalla Virajman. This judgment proves that adage like nothing else does, judgment must not only be done, it should also be seen to have been done. Had there not been a Muslim among the Honorable justices, all of them, and not only Justice Sharma, would have been tarred by the brush of being RSS sympathizers by our ELM.

A few of you may have received ‘rogue’ emails detailing foreign holdings in Indian Media Houses insinuating that the ‘anti-Hindu’ bias in our English Language Media and from the last few years, in the Indian Languages Media, flows on account of their financing and ownership lying with shady evangelical and Wahabbi organizations abroad. Since this mail does not provide and source or date for this information and I myself am not aware if such detailed information is publicly available, I, alongwith a vast majority of my countrymen would rather ignore such mails. 

However, this denial in no way negates my belief in the presence of ideologically committed warriors in influential positions in Media Houses who have ensured that the prime focus of media has shifted from broadcasting news to peddling views. In a general sense, while our citizens would be discomfited by the shenanigans of a vixen like news editor causing death of our securitymen in siege like conditions through her relentless information sharing diatribe, most would prefer to excuse such acts as the impact of high adrenalin in tense situations. Hence, for the discerning, chatterati reaction to the Ayodhya verdict might have come as an eye-opener on the ‘not-so-hidden’ agenda of these warriors.

Till the very moment of the judgment being made public, almost everyone in the ELM and quite a large section of the Hindutva warriors themselves, were quite convinced that the court could rule in no way other than handing over the site to Muslims. So, in addition to sermons on the necessity of maintaining peace, honoring the court judgment and unconcealed glee on the very visible prospect of a severe setback to the knickerwallahs, the news anchors kept on harking on how the blacker than black hole stain of December 06, 1992 needs to be erased. However, as minutes passed, we could soon hear the exuberant words of Ravi Shankar Prasad narrating the crux of the court’s proclamation and as the enormity of the court’s ‘sacrilege’ sank in, our progressive-liberals reactions morphed from smugness to disbelief to anger and finally vitriol.

Gone was the talk of the need to maintain decorum or to honor the court’s judgment. How could the court, decide in favor of Hindus? Wasn’t the court condoning the acts of December 06 through this judgment? A breast beating Shabnam Hashmi gave us a further glimpse of her bigoted mindset when she proclaimed that the second class status of Muslims, had been affirmed by the court. It would have been funny, had it not been so pathetic, to see columns of ill-informed opinions castigating the Court for giving its judgment on basis of ‘faith’ and not ‘facts’. Very surprising considering the fact that the court judgment was over 10,000 pages in length and even the best speed-readers would have taken at least a couple of days to simply have gone through the report. How then, could these news-anchors and columnists, ignorant of law and nuances of legalspeak, be out with their denunciations the next day itself? When the judgment itself wasn’t read, how could those ignoramuses decide that the basis of judgment itself was incorrect?

An aside of this is the usual progressive-liberal defense of obscene art or defamatory, insulting literature. “Have you even read/seen it?” they sneer, confronting protestors hurt by attacks on their temples and Gods. Only, these very people forgot to read the judgment before being up in arms when their sentiments and beliefs were hurt. Huh!

An almost universal target of condemnation has been the court’s recognition of Ram Lalla as a juristic person. Eminences such as Dileep Padgaonkar condemned this as a ‘sleight of law’ and darkly insinuated that Hinduism has been insulted by the Court’s act of equating God to a mere mortal. Of course, since Dileep is only a journalist, he cannot be expected to know law in toto. At the same time, as a journalist, he is expected to research before peddling his views. Not only have Indian Laws, the Contract Act included, recognized deities as juristic persons, they have been defined as minors in perpetuity, i.e., their affairs would be handled by their guardian. Mr Padgaonkar and his ilk would do good to know that grants by kings, gentry and the common man were made in the name of the Lord and in any dispute before courts, the primary deity of the temple would be a party to the dispute. So, what was so new in the Court making Ram Lalla a party to the dispute? On the insult to Hinduism, had Mr Padgaonkar been a little aware of our culture, he would have known that the entire edifice of Bhakti has been built on the Lord being a friend, a lover, a father, a mother, a companion of all times and one who feels joy, pain, anger and indifference like any other human being. But this is really asking for too much, isn’t it? Expecting our know-it-all journalists to be aware of their Indian roots?

On a more serious note, the court was to adjudicate on three questions primarily: whether there existed a temple at the spot of the demolished structure; who owns the land and did the idols of Lord Ram, Sita and Lakshman exist inside the mosque, or were the idols placed inside on 22 December, 1949?

Now, how could the court have decided otherwise on at least two of these issues? Namely, the pre-existence of a temple and the presence of idols in the structure. Except for the committed warrior band of ‘eminent historians’, no sane person could dispute the Himalayan evidence supporting existence of a temple before the mosque was constructed. How could an adjudicating authority ignore facts and go with the deep-rooted faith of these eminences that the mosque was constructed on an unused piece of land? Likewise, all the judges concurred that the idols were placed in the structure on the intervening night of December 22, 1949. What is there which can be disputed in this matter? Regarding another issue of whether the structure that existed was a mosque and whether it was constructed by Babur, the judges had different views and presented reasons on why they decided so. On the more critical aspect of ownership, before jumping to conclusions, let us review the salient facts of the issue:

• The party representing Muslims, AIBMAC, did not have any sort of possession of the mosque at any time
•  The premier Muslim body in Indian, Muslim Personal Law Board was not a party to the dispute at any time
• The Sunni Waqf board did not contest dispossession of the structure till 1961
• No Muslim body demanded that the idols be removed after they had been placed in 1949
• Hindu Mahasabha did not have possession of the land at any time
• Nirmohi Akhada contended that they were the traditional keepers of the temple, but could not prove ownership
• Retd Justice Deoki Nandan Agrawal filed suit seeking representation as the friend of Ram Lalla Virajman

Now, except for some records (supposedly incomplete) from the medieval ages which indicate grants and collections in the name of Ram Lalla, there is no documentary evidence of any of the party having possession of the land at any time. The litigant whose claim seems closest to being the most valid is of Ram Lalla himself, as he was and is the deity in possession and the fact of his dispossession being barred by limitation was negated by his being a perpetual minor. Hence, more than 400 years after the demolition of His temple, his claim to property was renewed the moment he was placed under the domes of the structure in question. What could the courts have done? Handed over the land to Muslims in negation of these facts, just to ensure that ‘faith’ of the ostensible champions of minorities was maintained?

What should be questioned is the decision of the courts to partition the property? The court seems to have depended on actual usage to decide tripartite ownership while one can argue that if both the existence of a temple and Ram Lalla’s claim has been upheld by the court, how can a part of the property be given to other parties?

It is probably here that the court’s desire to appear fair finally made it over-ride harsh facts of the case!

Finally, the Hindutva organizations have not exactly covered themselves with glory with their conduct before the verdict was announced. While there certainly cannot be any doubt towards the strength of their ardor with regards to the cause of Ram Janmabhoomi, the apologetic tone, the apprehensions regarding the court verdict and the bravado, betrayed that leading lights of the greatest mass movement in Indian history post independence were swayed more by rhetoric and had probably nurtured guilt in their hearts, quite a lot, which they seem to have felt as getting washed away by the court judgment.

Are We All Biharis Now?

Lest I be taken for a sourpuss, let me congratulate the JDU-BJP alliance on its spectacular victory in Bihar Assembly polls. Greater congratulations still, for the populace of Bihar, which rewarded performance over rhetoric and rejected those who promised a journey to the ‘olden days’.

Certainly, 206 out of 243 is an overwhelming mandate, beaten only by Congress (I)’s 404 out of 514 in 1984 and the SSP/SDF’s 32/32 in Sikkim, over many elections. There is yet again no doubt that the Bihar elections revolved, at least for the ELM, around one person, Nitish Kumar and with his re-victory, he is now seen as a potential Prime Ministerial candidate of the NDA in 2014. While it can be argued that the BJP’s gains in these elections have been more spectacular, i.e., a gain of 36 over the 55 seats it held previously, the ELM has been reluctant to credit the BJP for this gain and insist that this is a rub-off effect of Nitish’s glory. It, however, does not explain on why the Sun, i.e., (Nitish and JDU) have shone less brightly than the moon (the BJP in this case)

However, moving ahead of the self congratulatory posturing of the victors, it will do good to all of us to analyze and accept that while by no means ambiguous, the Nitish/NDA victory in these elections owes much to the vagaries of our ‘First past the post’ electoral system rather than any profound change in the political preferences of the voting public. Let us run through a few figures here:

·    General Elections 1984 (63.56% polling); Congress (I) 404 of 514 seats with a vote share of 49.1%

·    Assembly Polls Bihar 2000 (62.57% polling); BJP+Samata Party+JDU - 122 of 324 seats with a Vote share of 29.76%. RJD 124 seats with 28.24% vote share.

·    General Elections 2004 (Bihar only) 58.02% polling; NDA – 11 seats with 36.13% of votes; RJD+LJP – 29 seats with 46.68% of votes

·    Assembly Polls Bihar 2005 (46.50% polling); BJP + JDU – 25.52%; No of seats – 92; RJD – 25.07% & 75 seats while LJP + Congress (I) 17.62% and 39 seats

·    Assembly Re Polls Bihar 2005 (45.85% polling); BJP + JDU – 143 seats with 36.11% vote share. RJD+Congress+NCP 64 seats with 30.33% vote share

·    Assembly polls West Bengal 2006 (81.97% polling) - Left Front 227 out of 294 seats with 49.47% vote share. Congress – 21 seats with 14.71% vote share and the TMC 30 seats with 26.64% vote share

·    General Elections 2009 (Bihar only) NDA – 32 seats with 36.13% of votes; RJD+LJP – 4 seats with 28.03% of votes

·   Assembly Polls Bihar 2010 (52% polling), NDA – 206 seats with 39.07% of votes, RJD+LJP – 25 seats with 25.59% of votes

Thus, we see that the NDA, with only a 3.14% increase in vote share registered an increase of 63 seats.  It underlines that while the magnitude of NDA’s victory is amazing, the same is not backed by voting preferences of the public. For that matter, BJP’s victories in Gujarat have been on a vote share of around 50% but the number of seats won has hovered around 2/3rds. The Left Front victory in Bengal (2006) was on similar lines, around 3/4^th of seats backed by around 50% of popular vote. 

This is not the first time that we have noticed the vagaries of our existing electoral system. The BJP won around 34% of votes in the 1993 Uttar Pradesh polls, as compared to around 28% share of the SP-BSP combine but both ended with 177 seats each. More recently, in 2009 General Elections, the Congress gained around 2.5% vote share but that gain got translated in 63 additional Lok Sabha seats. It is a sense of déjà vu when we find the ELM getting breathless commending Nitish’s victory today. The same scenes and statements got bandied around when the UPA won in 2009 – Defeat of communalism, rejection of divisive politics, vote for development, so on and so forth.

While getting carried away in our self-exaltations comes naturally to us Indians, NDA in general and Nitish in particular, will do good to acknowledge a few points.

·    The Bihar vote is certainly a vote for development but more importantly, it is a sign of growing disenchantment with the RJD-LJP combine which experienced a significant decline of around 8%-10% of votes, even when accounting for the fact that these parties fought the last polls separately. In a way, while being a positive vote for NDA, it is a stronger repudiation of the RJD-LJP combine

·    That said, they still command loyalty of a quarter of voting population, and as West Bengal has shown, a down politician is not an out politician. It may take only a small event but before one knows, the NDA might be staring at serious opposition again

·    In spite of the many positives of the Nitish-Modi government and real fears of the state going back to the RJD, there wasn’t any strong wave of people coming out and voting for the NDA to reward it, a phenomenon which contrasts badly with 2000, when scared of an NDA victory, the Muslim and Yadav communities voted in droves and shored up the polling percentage. Hence, while Nitish may be appreciated, it is not necessary that he would be aptly supported by people in face of a determined opposition

·   Let not the BJP gloat over its ‘better strike rate’. Much of this victory, more pronouncedly in the Seemanchal region, owes to the absence of tactical voting by Muslims, who while not voting for the BJP, did not vote tactically to defeat its candidates. BJP’s base remained where it was and unlike in Orissa, where it managed to retain its base even after BJD’s termination of their alliance, it remains to be seen if it can display that much tenacity when Nitish does a Naveen

·    The NDA stands further weakened as the stake of JDU in continuing with an alliance with the BJP has vanished now. If the JDU remains in the NDA, it will have more to do with the search for relevance for leaders like Sharad Yadav and the rump of George Fernandes’s followers, rather than Nitish’s need for the BJP

·   While the ELM has all along been advising the BJP to completely break off from Hindutva and points to Bihar as a symbol of India fed up with identity politics, it fails to mention that Hindutva has been conspicuous by its absence in BJP campaigns right from 1995 though with a notable exception of Gujarat 2002 polls. Without any defining identity or program, the BJP is reduced to merely an electoral machine of diminishing capability and it will be reduced to a Regional party, somewhat larger than Jana Sangh in its hey-days

·   Most importantly, both the BJP and the JDU have not jettisoned caste. Not only has Nitish managed to create a solid support base among non Yadav OBCs and non Pasi Dalits, his championing of minority causes has seen the so called Pasmanda Muslims swearing by him. Likewise, the BJP has silently but resolutely courted the Upper Caste and landed gentry in Bihar. Other than caste, while Nitish has very certainly managed to make Bihar a much safer place to be in, his courting of Anand Mohan Singh (who ultimately supported Congress), Taslimuddin and the presence of numerous history-sheeters in the winners' list of both the JDU and the BJP give credence to the fact that the pragmatic Nitish realises that it will be many more years, if and if indeed, voters jettison caste and other parochial considerations.

Yet again, the purpose of this write-up was not to belittle the NDA's victory in Bihar. The victory is heartening and does indicate that the voters are turning their back on those whose only contribution is to act as promoters/spokespersons of a particular community. After all, the same voter did repose faith time and again in the Laloo brand of politics even as he saw Bihar descending into an abyss. Fortunately, the winners seem to have their feet more firmly on ground as compared to the ELM which seems to be reading a little too much in the victor's win.

A partial review of Wendy Doniger’s ‘Hindus – An Alternative History’

Professor Wendy Doniger is a controversial figure.

A towering personality in the field of Indology, Ms Doniger’s notoriety in academic circles stems from her insistence on translating, interpreting and comparing elements of Hindu mythology through contemporary lenses of gender, sexuality and identity. Much of the organized resistance to Ms Doniger flows from Rajeev Malhotra’s seminal analysis of the state of Indology studies in his essay ‘RISA Lila 1 – Wendy’s Child Syndrome’, published in Sulekha, in 2002. RISA stands for Religions In South Asia and is a unit within AAR, i.e., The American Academy of Religion, the official organization of academic scholars of Religious Studies in the Western world. Mr Malhotra forcefully argued that Hinduism studies in America are dominated by a cabal of academics led by Ms Doniger, suffers from deep set systemic biases, tends to psychoanalyze without context to present the ‘kinky’ side to Hinduism and worst of all, smacks of academic dishonesty in condemning academics who dare to differ from the strain of Hinduism being peddled by Ms Doniger and her cabal.

Predictably, Mr Malhotra’s essay kicked up a storm and the entire phalanx of academics who supported Mr Malhotra’s claims were dismissed as Hindutva sympathizers. On the positive, Encyclopedia Encarta recognized the validity of Sankrant Sanu’s exposure of systemic biases in Ms Doniger’s presentation of Hinduism and replaced her write up with a one by Prof Arvind Sharma. This apart, the development which could be said to be far more positive was a new found assertion of Indian Academics in analysis of writings on Hinduism, an effort which got ably reflected in the work ‘Invading the Sacred’ which conducted rigorous reviews of works by ‘Wendy’s children’ - Sarah Caldwell (Kali as the eroticized demon mother), Paul Courtright (Ganesh as a eunuch suffering from Oedipus complex), Jeffrey Kripal (Ramakrishna Paramhansa as a repressed homosexual) and the general inaccuracies in Hinduism research in American universities.

Of course, like any other good Samaritan, Ms Doniger was cloaked with the divine robe of a ‘martyr’ when an egg was hurled at her during one of her university talks, when the controversy was its peak. While the egg missed her, of course fortunately, this murderous assault on her person was sufficient for Ms Doniger to declare herself above debates completely!

With an impressive line up of memberships, awards and publications behind her, her opus ‘Hindus – An Alternative History’ was among the most awaited books in the field of religion in 2009. While I had formed an impression of Ms Doniger’s work through a perusal of her comments, interviews and nomenclature of her works like Asceticism and Eroticism in the Mythology of Siva (Oxford University Press, 1973), Women, Androgynes, and Other Mythical Beasts (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), Tales of Sex and Violence: Folklore, Sacrifice, and Danger in the Jaiminiya Brahmana (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), The Bedtrick: Tales of Sex and Masquerade. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000, her translation of Kamasutra, among others, I certainly wanted to have a first hand experience of a book authored by Ms Doniger to check for myself if her notoriety is really deserved.

Let me first confess that my knowledge of our Vedas, Puranas and Epics is limited for I cannot even remotely claim to be a scholar. Secondly, I don’t know Sanskrit and my limited knowledge rests on translations and commentaries in Hindi and English alone. Hence, my appreciation or critique of Ms Doniger’s work solely rests on a logical analysis of patterns supported by my knowledge (even though limited) of our scriptures. Those interested in a scholarly review of her book are requested to read this, by Vishal Agarwal.

After going through the book in its entirety, I have no hesitation in accepting that Ms Doniger is a learned personality. At the same time, she is clearly driven by an agenda to present Hinduism as a decadent and oppressive religion without having any central theme at all. The problems with her ‘alternative’ history can be summarised in a few points. Since I neither have the inclination nor the means to go into a deep analysis, I will restrict myself to pointing out to a couple of errors under each ‘problem’. The broad deficit areas in this work are:

• Tendency to provide the most sexualized interpretation to a word or an event: Too many to recount. A few interesting ones are with regards to the tale of Svetketu. Mahabharata holds that in ancient times, women were free to intercourse with anyone even after marriage. However, when a young Svetketu got to know of this ‘freedom’ after witnessing his mother going with another man, he bought about a change in established sexual mores and made fidelity a bedrock of marriage. So far so good. However, not content with this ‘license’, Ms Doniger makes the other man take away Svetketu’s mother ‘forcefully’ – all under the benign gaze of the husband and the son. Obviously, consensual sex is not as exciting as rape for Ms Doniger. In yet another instance, she mentions Rishi Kutsa, cohabiting with Indra’s wife – Shachi, taking advantage of his strong facial resemblance with Indra. Our scriptures content themselves with merely stating that Shachi mistook Kutsa for Indra once following which the Rishi shaved off his hair. The scriptures must be wrong. If Ms Doniger says that this sex by deception happened, it must have happened.

• Blanket assertions which are not necessarily based on facts: Too many to recount. Funnily, she does not even have an idea of the length of the Mahabharata. She claims it as comprising of 75000 verses, 'rounded off' to 1 lakh! Whoa! She quotes Arthashastra numerous times and then goes on to state that temples started getting constructed in India only in the late Gupta age. Wonder whether she missed the entire guidelines devoted to managing temples, priests and the offerings, as given in this 4th Century BC work of Chanakya. Almost an entire sub-chapter in her book is devoted in Rama’s suspicions on Lakshman’s repressed desires for Sita. Source? Her interpretations of what might have been going in their minds! 

• Mutual contradictions: The book begins with quite a promise when she accepts Indological studies being wrongly interpreted on account of ‘false negatives’, i.e., absence of something somewhere does not necessarily mean that the thing is absent altogether. She accepts that while occasional beef consumption might have happened, cow slaughter was a social taboo right from the very early Vedic days. However, when commenting on the Hindutva movement, she approvingly quotes DN Jha and commends him for proving that the sacred cow is a recent myth. Likewise, she moves on to Ram Janmabhoomi and points to absence of any reference to the demolition of the temple in Goswami Tulsidas’s Ramcharitmanas and claims that this denotes that the demolition never happened. For that matter, Ramcharitmanas doesn’t mention Akbar or Surdas either. Surely, this means that both these characters are mythical and do not have any base in history?

• Exalting peripheral and contemporary works to the level of central mainstream works: Ms Doniger interprets the epics based on 20th century works. So, we have Nina Paley’s ‘Sita Sings the Blues’ being treated as a retelling of Ramayan, at par with Valmiki’s work. We have instances of works written as recent as those by Ashok Banker and Shashi Tharoor being quotes and analysed. An obscure work on Sita and Ram being siblings has been quoted so many times that one may be excused for believing that the mainstream belief of their being husband and wife belongs to the fringe 

• Out of context interpretation of events: She compares the treatment of crow in both Ramayan and Ramcharitmanas and claims that on account of the positive impact of Buddhism in India, Ramcharitmanas shows Rama as being compassionate to that lowliest of creature, the crow, while the same Rama had blinded the crow in one eye in Ramayan. However, she fails to mention that the crow blinded in one eye was Jayant, the wayward son of Indra, who had pecked and clawed at Sita till she bled on the foot. While Ram shot an arrow which followed Jayant round the universe so that he be killed, the compassionate Sita intervened for his life and Rama spared him with the arrow only plucking out one eye. Most importantly, she fails to mention that this incident is presented in both Valimik’s and Tulsidas’s versions of Ramayana. The other crow is Kakbhushundi and is present primarily in Ramcharitmanas. He is the narrator of the tale and has been blessed by Rama. In another instance, she berates Rama and Lakshmana for disfiguring Shurpnakha for merely expressing her desire to have sex with them while the ‘progressive’ Bhima married Hidimba when she had expressed such desire. The points about Shurpnakha attacking Sita to kill her, Rama and Lakshmana sparing her life, their being self constrained by the vow of ‘Ek patni vrata’, of Hidimba desiring to be the wife of Bhima and Kunti’s and Yudhishthira’s blessing of the marriage are all of course minor irritants in the tale.

• Selective quotations: She quotes the lesser known Bhavishya Purana to show how Gautam Buddha was sought to be integrated in Hinduism as a demon, i.e., making people forget the Vedic religion so that the Brahmins can salvage their souls later. She of course makes no mention of the fact that 7 other Puranas –Vishnu Purana, Bhagavata Purana, Garuda Purana, Agni Purana, Narada Purana, Linga Purana and Padma Purana, besides works like Gita Govinda and Harivansa, speak of Budhha as a divine manifestation of Lord Vishnu. How different does it make her from JNU variety of historians who implant obscurity on Ayodhya on account of its absence of its mention (though Saket is mentioned) in the lesser known Vishnu Smriti when other texts Vishnu Purana, Shrimad Bhagvat Purana and numerous other works exalt Ayodhya as among the most sacred of pilgrimages?

• Political theme: Apart from finding sex of the kinky variety in every word in every work on Hinduism, the predominant concern of Ms Doniger seems to  be centered around ensuring deepening fissures and divisions in the Hindu scoeity. Her insistence on projecting works as that of Brahmins, of Kshatriyas, of Shudras, of Dalits and of women, as belonging to mutually antagonistic schools leaves one deeply discomfited with her agenda. A perusal of her footnotes and indexes will reveal instances where she has quoted a single work numerous times but  has given an impression of those being distinct works by different author. Eg – 'A Dalit woman writer states… ' The next line talks of another dalit woman commenting on the same topic and the footnotes reveal both the references from the same book by a single woman author! While she has liberally referred from the likes of Ms Romila Thapar, DN Jha, KN Pannikkar and other Marxists, she has missed out on works from Jadunath Sarkar, RK Mukherjee, scholars like Neelkanth Shastri or any other historian from the objective school. For that matter, she finds Col Todd’s works on Rajputs problematic for it presents the Muslim-Rajput wars as those in between the foreign barbaric invaders and the native invaded. Forget about distant history – she attributes Mahatma Gandhi as having uttered ‘Ram-Rahim’ as he was dying!

It is unfortunate that Prof Doniger enjoys the respect she does in hallowed portals of Indic studies. One would expect that a person studying a religion other than one’s own, that too as a scholar, would be attracted by the positives of that religion, without of course, allowing that appreciation to cloud one’s scholarly judgment. However, Ms Doinger’s interest in Hinduism seems to stem from intentions more ignoble. What makes the likes of Ms Doniger more damaging is the reality that her (alongwith her cabal’s) interpretation of Hinduism is slowly but steadily displacing the mainstream understanding of Hinduism as we know, from academic shelves and from belonging to the fringe, her interpretations run the risk of becoming mainstream. Just imagine someone not exposed to epics and puranas forming an understanding of Hinduism basis the works of Ms Doniger. Will that person be in wrong if his/her impression of Hinduism is of an oppressive religion which is not even a religion but a hodge-podge of libertine behavior and shallow rituals? It is very well to point out that the Shiv Linga is what is seems like – a phallic representation. At the same time, the import of that manifestation cannot be left out to the eroticized alone. It will be like pointing out that the Christian worship of the Cross is merely adoration and veneration of a human corpse hung on a crucifix.

Solutions galore on Ayodhya?

A darshan of Ramlalla at the makeshift temple at Ayodhya early this week was an event which I had been looking forward to ever since I had become aware of the struggle for construction of the temple at Ayodhya. While a complete identification with the zeal of Kar Sevaks of those decades is beyond me, I could only wonder on how could lakhs of Kar Sevaks manage to cram themselves in those narrow alleys of Ayodhya and attack the disputed shrine in midst of that heavy security bandobast! No wonder that the aggrieved community holds the PV Narasimha Rao responsible for the events of December 6, 1992.

The struggle for liberation of the shrine or construction of the Ram temple, depending on the way you look at it, has been an old one with 1949, 1986 and 1992, in the modern era, being watershed years. People involved with the issue were looking forward to the judgement of Lucknow High Court, if for nothing, as at least a step forward. Hence, the Supreme Court decision to defer the HC judgment has come as quite a dampener. It is inexplicable that the Honorable SC has decided to defer the judgement when by no stretch of imagination, could a decision on a 60 year old litigation process be seen as hasty or ill-thought. Likewise, the fear of adverse impact on Law & Order is inexcusable as even a fig leaf to cover governance shortcomings. More so, when the Courts adjudicate on the basis on facts and the law, governance being beyond their sphere of activities!

It is quite fashionable to oft-quote that the citizens of Ayodhya were and are aloof from the temple movement or that there is no sympathy of the construction of the temple any longer. Such assertions ignore the facts that most Kar Sevaks were lodged in houses of residents time and again and that the demolition of the disputed structure resulted in Diwali being celebrated at Ayodhya. Yet again, believing that support for the temple has waned would be mistaking trees for the woods. While there is no doubt that support for the parties who led the temple movement has waned considerably and all of them are bereft of any credibility on the issue, the average person on street, in fields and in kitchens, does not desire that the temple be replaced by a mosque or some hospital.

A look on the intransigence of the leaders, who represent the Muslim populace on matters on faith, makes one wonder whether these leaders are only interested in furthering their own careers or whether more ominously, their rigidity has something to do with the religious beliefs they profess. The controversy over the proposed Islamic Centre near the site of the destroyed World Trade Center has only served to harden the negative perception about Islamists. The proponents of the Mosque have done no service to their ostensible aim of promoting an understanding of Islam among others by their bull headed insistence on having the centre at that precise spot, something which is an anathema to a vast majority of Americans. In the case of Ayodhya, the dispute is in between a regular mosque and the Hindu efforts to reclaim the right to worship God where he was born in human form. Even if we dignify attempts to question the historicity and divinity of Rama, the point beyond doubt is that the spot where the makeshift temple stands today is considered especially sacred by vast multitudes of Hindus while the mosque in question held no such significance for Muslims.

Just imagine the wonders it would do to the standing of Muslim community in India if they voluntarily forego their claim to the mosque. Not only would such an act deflate anti Muslim propaganda of the more rabid Nationalists, it will completely take the wind off demands for restoration of the shrines at Mathura and Kashi. However, not only have these leaders failed to rise to the occasion, their fanatical supporters in the governance and chattering classes have only served to act as an hindrance to any potential settlement of the issue. Don’t they realise that the act of ‘giving away’ the site would only result in even more pampering of the ‘oppressed’ and ‘marginalized’ Muslims and rather than only a few Nadias and Degangas, they will be allowed free run of the entire country, on strength of their ‘sacrifice’? The ‘secular’ champions of all causes Islamic may take care to go back to the Hubli Idgah case and do well remember that the laws don’t follow secular theology all the time and Islamic claims can be thrown out by the courts. Another favorite ‘solution’ offered by these champions is the construction of both the temple and mosque side by side. This is not going to resolve the problem – Kashi and Mathura are a living testimony to the same. Suggesting building a school / hospital or a urinal (aka Mahesh Bhatt) is trivializing the issue, not even worth a serious debate.

The phase of struggle for the temple, witnessed in the previous century got entwined with the larger Indian yearning for a change from the effete Governments of the day and propelled the BJP to the centre-stage. Sadly, while the ruler changed, the regime did not and we continued to have more of the same in various forms.

I do not know if the makeshift temple would ever be replaced by a magnificent temple dedicated to Shri Ram on the site, the liberation of which has been the cause for countless martyrs over the centuries. Perhaps the temple has to wait, either for Muslim magnanimity or for another sustained phase of struggle for there cannot be any solution to the issue other than temple at that spot!

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!