The Controversy over Beef - Part 1

The Beef Festival in Osmania University has evoked reactions on both predictable and unpredictable lines. Predictable when we witness the cacophony of the left liberal clique baying for the Right to eat beef and unpredictable when we see that there has hardly been any noise from the Right on the matter. True, it was ABVP which led the protests against the festival at Osmania but it was a local affair. Unlike the fellow travelers of the left liberal clique, which has declared its intent to conduct beef festivals across the country, there has hardly been any statement from the Right commenting on the issue. Probably those leaders have realized that any statement will only play in the hands of those hate-mongers who now seem obsessed on cow meat. Interestingly, one student was stabbed during the fracas at Osmania and predictably those protesting food fascism shouted “Look, no one is safe. We told you so.” Unfortunately for them, the stabbed student turned out to be from the anti beef brigade and after some confusion, the left liberals rallied to declare that the stab wounds were self inflicted! Ah these Hindutwa-wallahs! As if worshipping a dumb animal and preventing poor us from relishing its meat was not enough, they can go to any extent to fix blame for anything on us. Arre, The cows that were eaten in the beef festival all had committed suicide so that we could eat them without engaging in himsa. But these Hindutwa-wallahs want to make it appear that those dumb animals were killed! What to do!”

The issue has mercifully died out, though not before conferring a small degree of celebrityhood to the previously inconsequential Meena Kandasamy, who seems to have learned the art of claiming victim-hood pretty well. There has been some activity on the cyberspace, mostly of the type proclaiming one’s right to eat beef. The argument in favor of the Right to beef is two-fold: 1. The State cannot dictate the food habits of people; and 2. The Cow’s sacredness is a myth and the ancient Hindus ate beef with gusto.

While the courts are probably the most competent authority to answer contention one, even a cursory analysis of the legal right seems hollow when we acknowledge that the Government is perfectly within boundaries when it declares animals / birds protected and prohibits killing and / or eating of such creatures. So, even though peacock was the preferred fowl for the royalty, right from Ashoka to Jahangir and deer, the preferred venison for the aristocracy and the tribal equally, one cannot simply kill and eat these creatures today and condemn State’s attempt to protect these animals as ‘Food Fascism’. Secondly, the law is also very clear on outraging of Religious sentiments of any community. Cow being held holy and beef, a taboo by most sections of Hindus, free license to cow killing and eating is unlikely. Probably because the left liberal intellectuals realize the unlikelihood of winning the legal right to eat beef, they have, over the few decades, focused their energies on denying the holiness of the cow. After all, if even small doubts get successfully germinated, it will be easier for the executive and the judiciary to be sympathetic to these groups’s desire to consume beef.

A book which is being named liberally in support of beef eating contentions and the non-sacredness of the cow is ‘Myth of the Holy Cow’ by DN Jha. Additionally, references to Dr BR Ambedkar’s supposed support to beef eating, by the likes of the rabid Kancha Ilaiah, are being paraded in support of one’s right to beef. Obviously, one needs to read the essay before commenting on it, something which few, if any of those referring to this book / essay seem to have done. Hence, here is an attempt at analysis; the essay, to be followed by another note on the book.

Dr Ambedkar published an essay ‘Untouchability and the Dead Cow’ in 1948. Unlike what some would like to believe, i.e., the essay is a polemic in favor of the right to eat beef; it in facts seeks to trace the roots of untouchability to consumption of beef. More importantly, throughout the essay, the beef which Dr Ambedkar talks about is the meat of the dead cow and nowhere is it one coming from cow slaughter. The second para of the essay reads:

“From the survey of the Census Commissioner, it is well established that Untouchables eat beef. The question however is: Has beef-eating any relation to the origin of Untouchability? Or is it merely an incident in the economic life of the Untouchables? Can we say that the Broken Men to be treated as Untouchables because they ate beef? There need be no hesitation in returning an affirmative answer to this question. No other answer is consistent with facts as we know them.”

Dr Ambedkar brilliantly groups Hindus among Vegetarians and Non Vegetarians and Non Vegetarian Hindus into beef eaters and abstainers. He says that the abstainers shared the Vegetarian’s abhorrence to beef and then goes on to suggest that “…those who have a nausea against beef-eating should treat those who eat beef as Untouchables.”

Dr Ambedkar quotes from the Veda Vyas Smriti in support of his hypothesis:

L.12-13 “The Charmakars (Cobbler), the Bhatta (Soldier), the Bhilla, the Rajaka (washerman), the Puskara, the Nata (actor), the Vrata, the Meda, the Chandala, the Dasa, the Svapaka, and the Kolika- these are known as Antyajas as well as others who eat cow’s flesh.”

He further contends that the untouchables were Buddhists and the scorn they invited from the Brahminical order by virtue of their faith, combined with their beef eating habits, gave rise to untouchability. I cannot even pretend to have even a fraction of the intellect which Dr Ambedkar possess and hence cannot comment on his hypothesis. However, regarding the quote from the Ved Vyasa Smriti, it is noticeable that of the abovementioned communities, the Bhatta, the Rajaka, the Nata, while certainly a part of the underclass were not treated as untouchable the way the Chandala or the Svapaka were. Interestingly, ancient texts refer to the Chandala as Svapakas and as those who ate dog meat. Is it this consumption, rather than that of beef, which made the Chandala untouchable?

Unfortunately, as Dr Ambedkar himself accepts, none of the Smritis explain why an untouchable is an untouchable and hence will have to treat Dr Ambedkar’s hypothesis with respect and leave it as a theory pending confirmation.

Moving to the second part of the essay, the learned author questions if Hindus never ate beef and writes:

“To the question whether the Hindus ever ate beef, every Touchable Hindu, whether he is a Brahmin or a non-Brahmin, will say ‘no, never’. In a certain sense, he is right. From times no Hindu has eaten beef. If this is all that the Touchable Hindu wants to convey by his answer there need be no quarrel over it. But when the learned Brahmins argue that the Hindus not only never ate beef but they always held the cow to be sacred and were always opposed to the killing of the cow, it is impossible to accept their view.”

Like a clinical analyst, Dr Ambedkar then presents those suktas from the Rig-Veda which support the cow’s sacredness before moving to suktas which indicate the sacrifice of the ox and the cow. He further affirms Dr Kane’s contention that the cow was eaten because it was sacred. The Rigvedic Suktas do proclaim ox and cow sacrifice though the cow seems to be barren in each of these cases. It won’t be farfetched to accept that the cattle was indeed a sacrificial category during the Rigvedic period.

Dr Ambedkar contends that the Vedic suktas (Satapatha Brahmana) and Apastamba Dharma Sutra, which do indicate that Hindus were against cow killing and beef eating are “merely exhortations against the excesses of cow-killing and not prohibitions against cow-killing. Indeed the exhortations prove that cow-killing and eating of beef had become a common practice.”

Interestingly, the Rig Veda also talks of the Narmedha (man sacrifice) being the highest yagna. However, the Veda itself talks of the Narmedha not being suitable for this Kalpa and hence not to be offered at all. Can we take this be to an exhortation against the excess of man-killing and cannibalism? Guess not so it will do good to our rational analysis if we apply similar standard to the suktas on beef eating too.

The third part of the essay deals with the issue of why Non Brahmins gave up beef and after analyzing the laws of Manu and Ashoka’s edicts, concludes that Non Brahmins gave up beef to emulate Brahmins. However, while Dr Ambedkar states that Ashoka did not prohibit cow killing, his own write up states: 

“She-goats, ewes, cows, that is to say, those either with young or in milk, are exempt from slaughter as well as their off-spring up to six months of age.”

However, very clearly this prohibition is more of a general nature and not borne out of any deference to cow. Interestingly, Prof. Radhakumud Mookerji’s contended that Pillar Edict V exemption to all four-footed animals, which are not utilised or eaten extended to cow, Dr Ambedkar disagrees and says that the cow cannot be such an animal. He further trashes Prof Mookerji’s argument that the cow being not a food item at the time of Ashoka did not merit any specific exemption at all!

We must accept that only one of Prof Mookerji’s contentions could be correct. If Pillar Edict V is the exemption then cow was certainly not a special animal to Ashoka at least and if his other argument is accepted, the first argument does not stand. At the same time, we cannot but respectfully disagree with Dr Ambedkar’s dismissal as absurd of Dr Mookerji’s logic as absence of something does not necessarily mean that the thing does not exist at all. Ashoka’s pillar does not talk about the tiger, the toad or the dog. What does it mean? Necessarily, nothing! Further, we tend to forget that Ashoka’s grandfather, Chandragupta Maurya, was so much influenced by Jainism that he became a monk under the tutelage of Bhadrabahu. His successor Bindusar was a follower of the now defunct Ajivika sect, which in many ways reflected Jain austerities. Moreover, Arthashastra  the rulebook of both these emperors had its own message of compassion to animals and severe penalties for hurting / killing both birds and animals. In view of the above and the fact that the two emperors preceding Ashoka were followers of traditions having strong element of ahimsa, it won’t be too farfetched to assume that compassion to animals had already become part of the State exhortations.

The fourth part of the essay deals with the question ‘What made Brahmins become vegetarians?’ This is where it becomes increasingly difficult to sieve the ideological tone of the essay from dispassionate analysis. Apart from such absurd statements like “….a law made by the Buddhist Emperor could never have been accepted by the Brahmins as binding upon them”, Dr Ambedkar makes conclusions which do not seem in consonance with what he himself quotes. He claims that the cow was not a sacred animal after quoting the following rules of Manu applicable to a Snataka (Brahmin student-scholar):

1. A Snataka should not eat food which a cow has smelt.

2. A Snataka should not step over a rope to which a calf is tied.

3. A Snataka should not urinate in a cowpan.

4. A Snataka should not answer call of nature facing a cow.

5. A Snataka should not keep his right arm uncovered when he enters a cowpan.

6. A Snataka should not interrupt a cow which is sucking her calf, nor tell anybody of it.

7. A Snataka should not ride on the back of the cow.

8. A Snataka should not offend the cow.

9. A Snataka who is impure must not touch a cow with his hand.

Except for the first rule, the others can be seen to indicate a high respect for the cow. Even this rule, while seem contra-intuitive, can be reasonably interpreted to mean that what is smelt by a cow becomes her food, the sniff being indicative of her desire to partake and hence the food, once cow-smelt, should not be consumed by any other person. It is entirely plausible that the person following the rule would rather offer the food to the cow than just throwing it away. To put all speculation to rest, we may please refer to the lawgivers Visnu, Yajnavalkya, Angirasa, Parasara and Vyasa, who unambiguously declared only cow's mouth to be impure. For instance, Sankha categorically states that the entire body of the cow, except for the mouth is pure.

Anyways, Dr Ambedkar traces the root of Brahmin’s turn to vegetarianism to the struggle between Buddhism and Brahminism. In a nutshell, he states that while Buddhism was against animal sacrifice, it did not propagate vegetarianism and hence the Brahmins, to be one-up on Buddhism, gave up meat eating altogether. Further, since cow was supposedly the prime animal of sacrifice, Brahmins not only gave up cow sacrifice, they became prime champions of cow veneration and protection. This placed them on a higher moral footing than the Buddhist monk who still ate beef. As per Dr Ambedkar, Brahmin pressure made Gupta king pass laws which made killing of cows a Mahapataka, equivalent to the killing of a Brahmin.

The concluding part of the essay talks about why should have beef eating made people untouchable.

Dr Ambedkar presents a wonderful analysis of the sacred and the profane and proclaims “..the circle of sacred objects is not fixed. Its extent varies infinitely from religion to religion. Gods and spirits are not the only sacred things. A rock, a tree, an animal, a spring, a pebble, a piece of wood, a house, in a word anything can be sacred. Things sacred are always associated with interdictions otherwise called taboos”. He quotes Prof. Durkhiem again:

“Sacred things are those which the interdictions protect and isolate; profane things, those to which these interdictions are applied and which must remain at a distance from the first.”

With this, Dr Ambedkar concludes that to ensure sacredness of the cow, a prohibition on its meat consumption had to be enforced and for those breaking it, nothing but untouchability was the answer. He says that while the settled communities of the older days ate fresh cow meat (before giving it up altogether), it the outliers consumed meat of the dead cow (outside legal prohibition), something which had continued to be the practice over many millenniums.

The left-liberal intellectuals who leave no opportunity untapped to proclaim their love and devotion to Dr Ambedkar should take his essays as lessons on intellectual honesty. Unlike the celebrated bunch of eminent historians and sociologists in our midst today, Dr Ambedkar quoted from scriptures ‘as they are’ and neither invented nor negated what was inconvenient to him. Of course, one can disagree with his analysis and conclusions but that is what an intellectual debate is supposed to be about, isn’t it?

It is noteworthy that Dr Ambedkar does not declaim the cow’s sacredness to the Hindus since historical times. While it will be churlish to deny that the cow was actually consumed, it is noteworthy that the milch cow was very rarely, if ever, eaten and almost all instances of cattle meat consumption are related to ritual sacrifices. Certainly, what was restricted to special affairs cannot be treated as routine and mundane. The cow, even when a sacrificial creature, was deemed a special animal by the Vedas. Special in the sacred sense, worthy of protection and veneration unlike the horse, which though special, was not deemed worthy of veneration. Secondly, even if we accept that the cow’s present stature is a gift of the Gupta kings, the state of affairs has continued for at least 1700 years, which by any scale is a period long enough to firmly establish beliefs as religion. Finally and most importantly, Dr Ambedkar’s write up talks of the historical and the extant arrangement of the Broken communities consuming meat of the dead cow. Dr Ambedkar merely gives his views on evolution of untouchability in the context of beef eating. He does not claim the right of the downtrodden to kill the cow and consume fresh beef. So much so for the activists’ obsession with the right to cow slaughter basis Dr Ambedkar’s teachings.

Dr Ambedkar’s entire essay can be read here

The dying art of Giving

In the days just after creation, when the world order was being established, there rose a primeval voice from the skies, proclaiming ‘Da…Da…Da’. The three races inhabiting the worlds - the Gods, the Demons and the Humans approached the creator Brahma to understand what the words meant. Rather than answering, Brahma asked - What do you think it meant?"

After some deliberations, the Gods replied –“It means Daman (control over pride). As the owners of the Heavens, we are prone to arrogance and we need to overcome it”. The Demons responded – “It means Daya (compassion). We are cruel by nature and hence need to be more compassionate”. The Humans in turn said – “It means Daan (Charity). The quest to secure our future creates needs and that need, when unbridled leads to Greed and we fall prey to it. Hence we need to share to control our greed through sharing & giving away.” Bramha replied – “You have understood correctly. Now go and live your learning”

This tale can be taken metaphorically with Daman, Daya and Daan – all being meant to be practiced by Humans to control the sins of pride, wrath and greed. Among all, Daan is one virtue which has been praised in no uncertain terms in almost all major religions of the world, both Dharmic and Abrahmic. Closer home, the Hindu way of life established Charity as among the foremost duty of the king, the warrior, the householder and even the server. Even if we don’t account for generosity of hoary figures like Dadhichi, Shivi, Harishchandra, Karna or the historical Harsha, we cannot ignore the reality that even not very long ago, refusing food to the hungry was considered a taboo in the society. Travel to any city / town in India and one will find traces of old philanthropy – schools, colleges, inns, temples, hospitals, ashrams, gaushalas and social institutes. While the British Raj did maintain Law & Order, neither the British nor the princely states were welfare states and any institutions they created were solely for their own benefits. It was left to individuals and groups to try and make a difference in whatever way they could. And did they not try - particularly in the heydays of the Nationalist movement?

Somewhere something has changed. While the Indian Nation can still pool its resources together when faced with disasters and wars, 'Giving' as a way of life seems to be in a decline. No longer do we see a willingness of people to donate, particular if it would hurt them in any way. Oh – we do give – hand me downs to maids; feeling good when we give to 'charity' those old clothes we did not have heart to throw away. Or even better – feeling good by 'giving' to some random agency our money (equivalent to a coffee’s worth) from payroll, which then deducts 40% of that puny amount before 'giving' the balance to some other agency, which finally uses the amount, after of course, using a good part of it to meet its establishment expenses. 

How long has it been that one has seen new institutions coming up through philanthropy? True, temples are being built and they certainly meet one need of the society but temples cannot be a substitute to hospitals and nari niketans. Interestingly, for a ‘materialistic’ society, the West seems to be beating us ‘spiritualists’ when it comes to loosening the purse strings. Not only do a far greater number of the Richie rich donate, an even greater number of people like us donate. People routinely bequeath part or their entire legacy to trusts. When did it last happen in India? We are a Nation where probably the richest sportsperson in the world claims that he only lives comfortably and asks for duty waivers on gifted luxury cars and we are all fine with it. Fine with it for deep down, we know that probably we would have done the same thing when in place of that sports icon.

Interestingly, the sin of pride is another area where we seem to be loosing the battle for arrogance is many a times deemed as ‘Justified arrogance’. Here again, while the ‘materialistic’ western civilization frowns upon arrogance even among its celebrities, we the ‘spiritualists’ fawn upon those who make it a point to flaunt their goodies. 

Of the three teachings of Brahma, it is Daya, which seems to be faring better. While we are yet to overcome violence, we do have lesser wars and lesser physical violence compared to the days of the yore. Even those who have little sympathy with the liberal movement will grudgingly acknowledge the impact of the human rights movement has had on societal disdain for physical violence.

It is funny but it would seem that the least likely winners, the demons have managed to fight their vices more effectively than their counterparts, the gods and the humans! So much so for the human superiority.

Some will argue that parting with one’s belongings is an individual act and the society has no role to play. I beg to differ. Values do get built by society and it is societal norms which determine what is good and what is not acceptable. If bullying people on their sexual orientation was acceptable till a few decades back and not acceptable now, it is changing societal norms and constant iteration of the need to respect an individual which has brought this change.  The norm of youngsters making a beeline to gyms has been brought upon by a societal appreciation of lean, muscular bodies.  Probably a review of the education system, at schools and at homes, may make the situation better. Probably it will make a difference when have spiritual leaders talking of the joy of giving rather than asking people to deposit money in their Bank accounts.

Conservative movement! Huh?

For a country where the Nationalist movement is at least one and a half century old and where a clean conservative movement close to a century old, it is quite odd that India still lacks a polity where conservatism is defined as it is. The media and social commentators do have a field day in defining their objects of observation as progressive, liberal, fundamentalist and so on, but in absence of a clearly defined ideology on what conservatism implies, these labels may turn to be misleading.

The above comment may be treated with incredulity by many as the RSS, with its various offshoots is seen as the banyan tree of Indian (read Hindu) fundamentalism / conservatism, while its political affiliate, the BJP is seen as the ‘Right’ in Indian politics. Undoubtedly, these organizations proclaim that they stand for the voice of the majority, which, conventional wisdom states, is the hallmark of conservative thought, across the world.

Conventionally, conservatism stands for maintenance of traditional institutions and supports only the minimal and gradual change in society. It would encompass support of republicanism, the rule of law and the religion, defense of civilization from the challenges of modernist culture and totalitarian governments, small government, low taxes, limited regulation, and free enterprise.

Now interestingly, applying the above tests, we find that none of the political parties in India come out as ‘true’ conservatives. Even more interesting, none of the parties come out as ‘true’ liberals either!  Both the poles of the Indian polity, the Congress and the BJP stand for support to traditional institutions, gradual societal change, ostensible support for rule of law and defense of civilization from modernist culture. At the same time, neither can truly claim to stand for small governments, limited regulation or free enterprise. True, while the Congress can be credited for assault on a basic societal tenant in the form of the Hindu marriage Act, the same Act can be construed as a great piece of Reform too. That leaves only religion where the BJP and the Congress differ. Here too, while the gradual but certain purge of traditionalists from within its ranks has made the Congress move away from majority conservatism, it is as conservative as it could be in terms of defense of minority religious issues, leaving the BJP as the only party supposedly batting for the majority religion.

So, is this the reason that we have never had a clearly denominated right wing in India, except for the brief flash of Swatantra Party? With no one party committed to anything in particular, it does make it quite difficult for labels to be affixed. But does that mean that conservatism is the prevailing thought in India? Not quite. With almost all parties committed to different vestiges of socialism, high Government control, high taxes, modernization and secularism, it is the liberal agenda which defines Government in India. And this is precisely where the Right Wing has failed in India.

For an apt comparison, let us have a look at the American conservative movement, for its greater familiarity with Indians today. Make no mistakes - even if we have a Black as the USA President, the fact of the matter is that  except of small intervals, legislature control in that Country has been primarily with the Republicans over the last 3 decades. Ever since Ronald Regan mesmerized America, that country has turned to the right and while we have had the Clinton and the Obama years, it is the Right which has been setting the political agenda. The media may be overwhelmingly liberal but it is the conservative political thought which is the one that needs to be vanquished by the liberals. The impact of conservative movement can be gauged from the fact that in any US elections, seemingly inconsequential topics like gay marriages, abortion, intelligent design, religion / sect of the candidate become major issues. Contrast this with India, where except for 1967, when cow slaughter was a limited issue or 1991, when Ram temple was an issue, no election has ever had any religious topic as campaign nodal point.

Even at its heydays, the BJP won only one quarter of the popular vote and while it did set agenda for political discourse for little more than a decade, today it cannot even articulate as to how different its rule would be vis-à-vis a Congress rule. So much removed from the US where according to an August 1, 2011 poll, 11% of American voters identify themselves as "very conservative", 30% as "conservative", 36% as "moderate", 15% as "liberal", and 6% as "very liberal.

In the popular Indian imagery, the US is associated with Kennedy, Nixon, Clinton and seen as a land of liberal business and moral values. And why not, our imagination is restricted to New York and other metropolitan areas with the South and Mid West hardly registering any presence at all. Reality is of course, more complex and during segregation, the Southern Democrats in fact were a part of the Conservative Coalition which governed the Congress till 1963. The biggest setback to the conservative movement was Kennedy’s assassination which in turn led to Lyndon Johnson’s landslide in 1964. Barry Goldwater was defeated in the polls but not vanquished. It was this defeat which led the conservative movement to change tracks and become more grassroots in orientation. The Church became more intwined with local politics and various denominations started acting as pressure groups as various levels. Of course, the high point was formation of the Moral Majority, which while condemned by the liberals, ensured Regan’s victory and the beginning of conservative stranglehold on the US politics. What is noteworthy is that organizations like ‘Save our Children’ or ‘Christian Coalition of America’ were not overtly politically aligned to any single organization. However, since Republicans led by Ronald Regan unabashedly articulated causes which the Christian Right held dear, the grassroots movement became Republican in character.

Here in India, the closest we came to this being replicated was the early 90s. However, not only did the BJP shoot itself in its feet, the foot soldiers of the Ayodhya movement too lost credibility. The reasons are not far to seek. Other than the Ram Temple, these organizations had nothing to offer on Hindu values, an Indian way of life compatible with changing needs of people. The movement does not have any intellectual champions, with whatever we have today, either being decades old or from people who have disavowed any connection with the Sangh Parivar. While there is a possibility that the BJP may still return to power, its next avatar is likely to be even further removed from its moorings as a conservative flagpost.

Practicing Leadership sans followers

Leaders are by definition people who lead their followers. While this is true in most cases, there are exceptions where the overwhelming will of the 'led' forces the leader to swap roles with his followers and then the leaders become the led. This happens particularly when passions run high and the leader is at bay trying to control them, fearful of losing legitimacy among his followers if he succumbs, too greedy to let go of potential place in history if the followers prove right!

These exceptions anyways apply to those who are leaders in the true sense, those who have proven themselves on the field, whose actions inspire trust among them followers, those who have a moral, an ideological center in life and those who instinctively connect with the multitudes. Life probably would have been simpler if our political leaders were only those who belonged to this ilk. But the harsh realities of statecraft acknowledges that not all gifted men necessarily command the thoughts of others and very often may lack what are called leadership qualities. But since their other qualities may be of immense use to various causes, the polity makes space for them in nominated positions.

So far so good. But what happens when political apparatchiks lacking charisma and that connect with the masses get anointed with leadership positions in Nations which do not have a single party dominance? The answers are not far to seek. We get parties like the Congress under Sitaram Kesri, the extant BJP and the Communist parties. While the Congress has an insurance of existence of the Nehru Gandhi family, which whether palatable or not, does possess charisma and a connect with the masses of India, the communists can protect their core by virtue of their conviction in their ideology. That leaves the BJP, which neither has a central figure nor possesses any ideology which can provide it with leaders who can lead people. And the result – we have a party president, whose tenure in Maharashtra was marred by factionalism and decline in the BJP’s fortune. He was probably parachuted to New Delhi so that he could replicate  BJP's Maharashtra  'success' at the National level. Then we have the notorious ‘Dilli-4’, a quarter of which had last won a popular election two decades back, another quarter whose last elections were in his heydays as a student union leader, another quarter who while having won popular elections, is forever intriguing against a mass leader from his home state. Is it any wonder that actions taken by the party ‘High Command’ seem so hopelessly out of touch with what its constituency expects?

Very certainly, these leaders are aware of their perceived shortcomings and even more certainly, try in their own ways to understand what the public thinks. And since they are either insulated from the cadre and supporters or appear to listen only what they want to – they end up falling on the print and visual media (of the type they are more comfortable with) for inputs on how to behave and how to lead.

It is amazing that in spite of their very very certain intellect and capabilities, they fail to gauge that they are searching for inputs from those who despise them and will never think of their good. Even a neutral observer will vouch that the reports of major newspapers and news channels, be it Times of India, Indian Express, Hindustan Times, IBN7, NDTV, Times Now – all are heavily biased against the BJP and the so called politics of Hindutva. And hence, attempts at moulding party policy to suit the whims of the incorrigible saffron haters will only result in further alienating the core. The result – leaders become leaders of television studios and of backroom intrigue. Another logical by product of this arrangement is the deep insecurity and mistrust these leaders developof leaders who can sway masses. So, excuses are invented and minor misdemeanors are magnified to sideline real leaders of people.

Lest I be accused of hyperbole, let us look at the fate of a few regional satraps who were cut to size by the Delhi leadership.

• Kalyan Singh – The Temple movement's OBC mascot was humiliated to the point that he had to leave the party. Consequence was BJP’s decimation in UP. In 2002 assembly polls, the BJP failed to win a single seat in the vast swathe of UP – from Aligarh to Kanpur Dehat. And that is not all. The downward spiral continues
• Uma Bharti – Though sort of rehabilitated now, every possible indignity has been heaped on this heroine of the Ram temple movement; from snide accusations of an affair to planted stories in the media. The Uma Bharti we see today is but a pale shadow of the woman she was
• Babulal Marandi – The powerful clique led by Rajnath Singh and corporate interests resulted his removal from the Chief Ministership. This one time RSS pracharak was so buffeted in the party that his resignation was more of a sacking
• Bhagat Singh Koshiyari – The only mass leader of Uttarakhand was overlooked for Chief Ministership in favor of an unknown Nityanand Swamy and then a Delhi hoisted late BJP entrant BC Khanduri. While Khanduri may be a good administrator, it goes beyond saying that he lacks a popular base and Koshiyari has been treated unfairly
• Madanlal Khurana – The Delhi stalwart was forced out of Chief Ministership and made redundant in the Delhi BJP. The same fate befelled his successor Sahib Singh Verma. Verma died an untimely death and the only mass leader of Delhi BJP was first expelled, then rehabilitated and now is inconsequential in both the party and the capital
• Vasundhararaje Scindia – With all her faults, the ex-royal is a mass leader and commands a strong following in Rajasthan. All efforts were made to sideline her, efforts being led by another rootless wonder, Jaswant Singh. Unfortunately for her haters, she is yet to be sidelined the way they would want
• Gopinath Munde – The only pan Maharashtra recognizable face of Maharashtra BJP hangs around probably only because he has nowhere else to go. But sooner or later, Munde, finding no maneuver space against the Gadkarian intrigues will be forced to seek greener pastures
• BS Yedyurappa – Its Kalyan Singh all over. Since the day BJP wrested power in Karnataka, riding on a sympathy wave for BS Yedyurappa, the Congress kept on trying all tricks in the book to destabilize the Government. Helped by the media crescendo and the unending byzantinian intrigues of the wannabee Chief Minister, the toothy Ananth Kumar, Yedyurappa was forced out of office. No one gave a damn that that Yedyurappa broke no law in the mining saga and rather than taking the UP, Goa, Haryana Rajasthan route of gaining a majority, opted for getting new entrants to the BJP to first resign as MLAs and seek a fresh mandate. Now, even when the corruption allegation against him have been quashed (the nepotism allegation still stands), he is being denied the seat which is rightfully his. It is inconsequential if the BJP finds Karnataka to having become another Uttar Pradesh. What is of only consequence is that Yedyurappa must be fixed! Fixed he certainly will be and very likely that he will split the party, probably to be rendered ineffectual himself. But the harm that it will do to the BJP will be incalculable.

It would seem that the allegations of the BJP being a Brahmin Bania party are not entirely unfounded. It’s Party President and three quarters of ‘Dilli 4’ are Brahmins and a few exceptions notwithstanding, most of the leaders at the receiving end of intrigues are OBCs. Perhaps the caste factor is coincidental. What certainly does not seem coincidental is that people who can make a difference have been and are being systematically sidelined.

What to say? ‘Leaders’ who believe that they can rule the Center even as they are ceding ground in States can think of any anything!

Not a Reformer certainly

I hold no brief for Mamata Banerjee but cannot help but wonder on what exactly has she done to deserve the hostility of the ELM? If it is on account of her rusticity, the media darling Lalu can give her tips anyday. If it is her propensity to throw tantrums, she can learn a thing or two from Jayalalitha. If it is her opportunism, she will be a student to the likes of Nitish, Naveen and Paswan and if it her populism, Manmohan Singh can teach her a thing or two.

Just imagine, a single woman who almost single handedly fought a mighty party / Government apparatus for over two decades and is known to by incorruptible (by standards of Indian politicians) is treated like a virago by the ELM. Her fault, she does not pay obeisance to the reigning matron at 10, Janpath and more critically, she is not seen as favoring the business houses. So, Mamata is berated for protesting against the Teesta water treaty. Her fault – she protested against the unfair share which Bangladesh was being provided under the treaty. The ELM conveniently declared her as being against National Interests and for putting provincial considerations over the National ones. Pray tell us, is Bengal not India? How can something which is bad for Bengal be good for India and most importantly, how can one claim that by giving away National assets, India gains. A question to all r those who still like in the make believe world of only give and no take, please tell how exactly did India gain by giving away rights on Tibet to China, by giving over Manipuri land to Burma, by handing over Katchtheevu to Sri Lanka, by handing over Tees Bigha, Tin Bigha and the Ganga water to Bangladesh? Both the Indus Water Treaty and the Ganges Water treaty are loaded in favor of the smaller nation. What did India gain with these acts of magnanimity that it should be more magnanimous?

Mamata is chided for her land use policy. So, what should be done? All the sharecroppers and small land owners be gassed or sent to gulags? Or have Kalinganagar, Nandigram, Vedic Village, Bhatta Parsaul repeated in thousands of villages of Bengal? While it is certainly Government’s business to promote trade and commerce, it is not its business to act as cronies of business houses trying to make money in the guise of growth. 

The ELM’s dislike of Mamata has reached newer heights with the Railways fare hike by Dinesh Trivedi. Sadly, the commentary provided by the ELM only serves to buttress the notion that a vast majority of people who masquerade as journalists are career discards who could do nothing better in life. Firstly, simply because Dinesh Trivedi declared the fare hike in terms of paise per km, it was declared by those sanctimonious people as marginal hikes. Of course, had they managed to clear their basic arithmetic examinations in school, they would have known that existing fares were (in progressive scale) less than 30 paise per km for second class rail travel and Rs 1.01 for AC second class travel. The hikes proposed by Dinesh Trivedi are marginal only if 15%-20% hikes are marginal. Another pretender from the same ilk, Vivian Fernandes, who happens to head a media company claims that fares had not been raised for the last two decades! Huh!

This is not to say that there was no case at all for a fare hike. At the same time, a mere fare hike does not make either the Railway budget progressive or Dinesh Trivedi a reformer. What has Trivedi done except to raise fares? There is absolutely nothing in the budget which would help reduce superfluous expenditure, improve safety, improve maintenance, improve passenger amenities or at the very minimum, improve cleanliness and punctuality. If claims of bringing down Opex Ratio is being greeted with orgasmic sighs, it only shows the barrenness of their intellect for it does not take much to understand that if revenue is increased, opex ratio will come down even when expenses are not reduced. No sir, Mr Trivedi has been hailed simply because he ostensibly stood against Mamata (though the entire saga reeks of having been fixed by the main protagonists). 

It is funny that precisely the same set of people start crying themselves hoarse when airfares climb upwards. Haven’t airfares been static for more than a decade? Should they at least not been tripled since everything has become so expensive? No, they haven’t for scale has also resulted in economies and airways have also cut down on superfluous expenses.

That we are back to the Indira and Rajiv years in terms of budgets seems to have escaped notice of the ELM completely. In those years, each budget would mean increased taxes, increased prices. This year, we have had hikes in Excise, Service Tax and Train Tickets. Almost everything will be more expensive. Reforms are dead and so is the India growth story. The ELM which went breathless commending UPA 1 & early UPA 2 for growth is strangely silent now. It never bothered to accept that economy performs with a time lag, i.e., policy decisions have a gestation of at least 2 years to bear fruit. UPA 1 reaped benefits of NDA policies and now chickens of UPA1 are coming home to roost. Long live the Italian matron! Long live NAC and long live Manmohan!

Vanvaas in Uttar Pradesh

I proclaim my innocence lest feminists get the urge to lynch me, the adage I am about to quote is just that – an adage and bears no reference to my own opinions.

"Aurat ke liye sautan ka dukh vaidhavya ke dukh se bada hota hai." Loosely translated meaning that a woman in a bigamous marriage is more unhappy than a woman who has lost her husband.

Whether or not this adage is true or whether its truth has changed over the years, we must leave that to social scientists to investigate. What we must certainly observe and comment upon is the amount of glee in both the Congress’s and the BJP’s camps, over the less than honorable performance of either parties in the assembly elections in general and in the Uttar Pradesh polls in particular. While any neutral observer may observe that both the parties failed, the statements from both the parties would make it seem that each of them is deriving more joy at the humiliation of the other, not realizing that it has been stripped too.

In Congress’s defence, let me state that while it could not protect its performance of 2009, it still recorded a 3% increase in vote share and while it was a runner up in only 35 constituencies, it did manage to poll more than 15,000 votes in a very large number of constituencies. In effect, Congress is actually a presence across Uttar Pradesh now, not a party whose performance in a few pocket boroughs will give a mis-impression of a vote share of 8-10%. True the party lost about 5%-6% when compared to the Lok Sabha polls but then it did not contest in about 50 seats this time. Most critically, the downward spiral seen in its vote share, since 1990 has been reversed and has actually increased.

Look at the BJP on the other hand. It lost votes, both when compared with 2007 assembly and 2009 Lok Sabha polls. It is all but decimated in the Central UP the heartland which carries the maximum seats of all regions, having captured only 11% of popular votes this time. In vast swathes of the State the BJP has finished 5th or 6th and has had the largest number of forfeitures in the last few decades. While it may seem that the BJP has lost 1% of vote as compared to 2007, when it had a 17% share, it had contested those polls in alliance with Apna Dal and JD(U) which together had polled over 2% of votes. This time, in spite of having fought almost all the seats independently, it managed a mere 16%, a fall of over 3%. In the 2009 Lok Sabha polls, it managed 19% with its ally the RLD managing another 3%. Compared to 2009, the BJP too has lost 6% of the votes.

Now who is the bigger loser, the BJP or the Congress?

With these results, it is quite cussed on the part of the RSS to blame BJP’s political leadership alone for the debacle. The central leadership was as far away from managing the election as it could be, it having been handled almost exclusively by Nitin Gadkari and Sanjay Joshi, with all the blessings of the RSS. If things were so wrong to begin with, why did not the RSS set things right while the polls were on? Everyone can after all, be wise in the hindsight.

One interesting phenomenon which seems to have missed notice of most commentators is that the BJP’s performance in terms of seats is actually not as bad as it should have been. If you are wondering how, then let’s have a look at these figures

Year Vote Share (with allies) Seats (with allies)

1991 30% 212

1993 33% 177

1997 31% 176

2002 25% 88

2007 19% 51

2012 16% 47

In the first past the post system, any party winning over 30% of votes in a multi partied election is almost destined to emerge as the winner or at least the single largest party. Hence, the drop in BJP’s votes in 1997 did not translate into much of a loss for them in terms of seats. The difference came in 2002 when BJP’s 6% decline resulted in its seats being reduced by half, i.e., to 88 A further 6% reduction resulted in another over 40% loss for the BJP in 2007 while a 3% loss in 2009 has resulted in a loss of mere 4 seats. Add to that 10 other seats where the BJP lost by less than 1,000 votes and we see that its seat share is actually more than what it otherwise deserved. What happened?

It is worthwhile to note that 23 of the 47 seats which the BJP has won are seas where Muslims form over 30% of the population. Overall, with the number of constituencies where it was the runner up, i.e., 55, it was a presence in 102 odd seats. Not that bad when one considers that it was only 243 odd seats which the Sanjay Joshi led team was focusing. So, booth level election management probably did arrest some bit of the BJP’s slide without which it might have reduced to 30-35 seats, which quite a few opinion polls had been projecting.

Anyways, a party which concentrates only on 243 of 402 seats cannot be considered a serious contender for power. A party which is a factor only in one-quarter of the total assembly seats does not deserve to be the ruling party. The BJP fought for the 3rd spot and it won that. With each election, we see a steady downgrading of the BJP’s ambitions in UP and UP rewards it accordingly. After all, who would want to vote for a party which does not stand for anything or anybody?

Why did the BJP perform so badly? Congress’s stars are not exactly on an upswing, the BSP was discredited and SP’s rule was not a distant memory yet. Most importantly, the BJP did not fight on Hindutva (anyways the last election on Hindutva was 1993) and supposedly there was no Muslim consolidation against it. Then why could it not convert the opportunity to growth?

Sadly, I am forced to agree with Nazarwala, whose predictions on UP since 2007 have been uncannily on mark. It was Nazarwala who had forecast a Maya victory in 2007, Congress’s resurgence in 2009 and SP’s victory in 2012. It was he who wrote that the BJP’s vanvaas will continue in Uttar Pradesh and its tally fall below its 2007 score. And the reason as per him – the BJP cheated the people of UP with its promise of Ram Temple at Ayodhya and the people are punishing it for having reneged on its promise. If one asks, why UP and not the rest of India, my answer shall be two fold – One, the states where BJP grew in the early 1990s (other than its strongholds of Delhi, MP, HP and Rajasthan) were Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, West Bengal, Karnataka, Assam, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. Of these, only Gujarat has consistently voted for the BJP and Karnataka saw decline of the party for about 10 years before it wrested power in 2007. In all the other states, the party has reduced and the decline is yet to be arrested. Secondly, it was UP where the BJP’s rise had been the most meteoric, from 11% in 1990 to 33% in 1993. It goes without saying that the decline should follow the same trajectory.

For all of BJP’s campaign sans Hindutva, the Muslims still gravitated to the SP. Hence, it should put to rest the vapid theory propagated by the ELM that polarization works against the BJP. It lost when it supposedly ran a communal CD based campaign in 2007 (which it disowned), it lost when Varun Gandhi became the new Narendra Modi for the ELM in 2009 and it lost when even the riots of Mau, Bareilley and Moradabad were not raised these elections.

Perhaps the BJP will do good to take a leaf out of the victor’s book and offer an apology to those millions which it hoodwinked in the name of the Ram temple at Ayodhya. Let it begin with LK Advani saying sorry to those who braved all odds to be a part of the yatra and become Kar Sevaks. Let the RSS apologise for having jettisoned its ideology to help the BJP cling to power by any means. Let the VHP apologise to those who it let down. Let them apologise to those sadhus and sants who came under their umbrella and braved bullets to fulfill their dream of reclaiming that hallowed land at Ayodhya. And last but not the least, let them apologise to the families of those martyrs who sacrificed their lives in their vain search to reclaim the temple of our Lord.

Who are we and how do we determine if the ‘others’ belong to this collective we?

One of the paradoxes while many readers of history may have noticed is the subliminal belief among most Indians that the Ghaznavis, Ghurids and the Mughals were foreigners even though they belonged to areas corresponding to the northern ranges, which mythologically and historically had formed a part of the Indian civilization and which supposedly, still figures in the Undivided India dream of the Hindu Nationalists. If the Hindu Nationalists so strongly believe that the land in between the Oxus (Amu Darya) and the Indus was very much India, how could people belonging to those regions and a little beyond be foreigners, that too, in perpetuity? This particularly when we don’t necessarily see Kushanas, the Sakas and the Hunas as foreign invaders once they established their rule in the country?

Probably, this is the reason, why most ‘eminent’ historians of the pink variety took it upon themselves to declare in sanctimonious tones that while the British were certainly foreigners, the Muslim Invaders, weren’t.

The reality certainly lies somewhere in between! The concepts of ‘Us’ and ‘Others’ are not static but evolve with time. When population expands, we may not know or be personally related to all who stay with us. We take recourse to external symbols and practices to identify those who are like us. And these symbols could be clothes, (fabric, color and style), ornaments, food habits, language and religious rituals

The traits of Territorialism and clannishness are present in most mammalian creatures, humans being no exception. Hence, it is of little wonder that since the dawn of civilization, tribes have identified the human race as comprising of two groups, ‘Us’ and ‘Others’. Defining ‘Us’ was relatively easy to begin with – people associated with familial links formed the initial ‘Us’ and with growth of population, expanded to include those sharing similar food habits, language, religion and culture. Defining ‘Others’ was as simple – anyone not falling within the category of ‘Us’ belonged to ‘Others’ – treated with suspicion and quite often, hostility. Probably, it was a primal fear, of being overwhelmed by the ‘Other’ and losing access to one’s resources or a simpler fear of loss of limb or life or a more sophisticated dislike of cultural poverty of the outsider – almost all civilizations had had very clearly defined groups of people who were not ‘Us’. For the Chinese, all races beyond the middle kingdom (which had to expand continuously to include the frontier people), were the barbarians, while for the Ancient Indians, people inhabiting lands beyond the Northern ranges were ‘impure’. Even within, those who did not fall under the pale of the much maligned Varnashram Dharma, became the dasas, mostly living beyond the pale of regular Vedic and post Vedic civilization. In ancient Greece, slaves were clearly demarcated from the citizens and stayed in separate quarters while in Islamic societies, a better solution existed, force the vanquished to embrace Islam so that the question of the ‘Others’ is taken care of in toto! On a more serious note, it will be rare to come across any such instance of history where the victor race, particularly when not sharing a common cultural heritage with the vanquished, has treated the vanquished as ‘We’. So, while today, we may see Iran as a belligerent Islamic Nation, we cannot lose sight of the fact the Islam of Iran is Persian and not Arabic and that this ancient civilization became important only when the Persians overthrew the Arabs to establish Persian rule, though Islamic in nature.

Looking at India, we have a strange situation where very clearly, the ‘Uttarpath’ land neighbourly to ancient seat of Vedic civilization in Punjab became forbidden territory by the later Vedic Period. Likewise, its people, in spite of the others’ acceptance of their beauty, wealth and perfectness of Sanskrit, spoken by them, had begun getting seen as the fallen Aryas, a land where Varnashram Dharma was no longer followed. Things changed with advent of the Mauryas and close association with the Gangetic civilizations ensured that the land and the people were seen as Bharatiya. But even here, the people of northern ranges were seen as being different to other Indians, like today we see a Tamilian as seen as being different to a Kashmiri.

Whatever difference there was, got accentuated with the advent of Islam in those regions. The first important central Asian, who invaded these parts of India, was Subuktgin, belonging to the lands around Samarkand, not really an extension of Asian India. He established his reign in Ghazni and his notorious / illustrious son Mahmud, the iconoclast plunderer, raided deep into the Indian mainland. Since Mahmud and the later invader, Ghori were based out of Afghanistan, can it be said that at least Ghori, since he was partially of the Afghan stock, was an Indian and that his invasion was not a foreign invasion?

The tricky question of ‘Us’ versus ‘Others’ begs answering here. For the animal world, identifying the ‘Other’ is easy, for the human beings, this is where we begin to acknowledge that culture at times, becomes more critical than birth in identifying the ‘Others’

The ancient invaders, Kushanas, Sakyas and the Hunas certainly did not belong to those lands which formed a part of ancient India. However, very soon they adopted the culture of the country which they had invaded and became assimilated among ‘Us’. On the other hand, people inhabiting the Northern ranges moved furthest away from the Hindu culture with Adoption of Islam and more importantly, looking westwards (Persia and Arabia) and Northwards (Central Asia) rather than to the East for spiritual and cultural inspiration.

Interestingly, while the Ghurids were seen as despicable mlecchas, the Islamic rule in India for over 3 centuries resulted in a scenario where the Suris were not seen as outsiders and in fact the battles against Babur in which the Afghans fought hand-in-hand with the Rajputs were seen as struggles against a foreign invader, a usurper who had conquered Kabul but did not belong to the historical Indian lands. Why was that? Is it because the Afghans had made peace with the Hindus, because Kabul and Zabul still had some Hindu influence or more importantly, the prospect of a ruler from Central Asia, related to the Mongols and the Turks made the Hindus feel that the Afghans were at least ethnic cousins? Or was it simply because 3 centuries of Turko Afghan rule had made Hindus indifferent to their distinct practices.

That begs another question. If three centuries of Islamic rule in the early millennium had sort of assimilated Afghani Muslims, why was the Mughal rule seen as foreign till the nether years of that empire? After all, the Mughal ruled only those areas which were historically Indian and in spite of all of Babur’s lamentations and pining for the cold lands, delicious fruits, beautiful gardens and luscious men, Babur died in the country he so hated and none of the later Mughals too succeeded in transcending the Indian boundaries. Probably the rule was foreign till the very last as the Mughals looked to Persia for inspiration and ruled as rulers over the ruled race. The court language, the administration system, the festivals, the jurisprudence, all were lifted from Persia and the Mughal emperors styled them after their Persian counterparts. Seems familiar with the British rule, doesn’t it?

In our effort to be politically correct, we miss out that the concept of ‘Us’ vs ‘Others’ is relative and the key to this segregation is the strongest identity the people have. We do not miss out on saying that all humans are not alike but at the same time fail to appreciate that when ranged against other families of the same tribe / clan, a family assumes a uniform identity different from the rest of its ilk. Likewise, a state may have different regions, a language different dialects, but in a Nation, a state has a singular identify, against other languages, all dialects merge their identity with the mother language. Likewise, people may cry themselves hoarse claiming that Muslims are not a monolith and that they have numerous castes and sub-castes, but so what? For Muslims belonging to the ummah, their identify subsumes all other identities. Some erroneously claim that Bangladesh was a negation of the concept of a Muslim identity? How is that so? Bangladesh remained Islamic and never expressed a desire to merge with India. There are 49 Muslim countries in the world today and a Shia Iran hates what the Wahabbi Arabia stands for. That does not mean that these nations do not share a singular Islamic identity. Their scriptures have made them see as one people, irrespective of their race and Nationality. The Han Chinese see themselves as one people and so even Taiwan does not have a world view which is different from that of mainland China

For the Hindus, fortunately or unfortunately, their identity as religionists have been subordinate to their identity as a caste, the feeling. Very clearly, how we see ourselves and others is a result of both our primal instincts and conditioning. In a larger group, we search for similarities to perceive ourselves as more powerful against the others and in smaller groups, stress on differences to place ourselves apart from the others.