Giving credit where none is due!

Tucked in corners of some newspapers today was a small news item. ‘Ram Navami not celebrated in Ayodhya’. The small reports explain that owing to a 19 year Supreme Court order, which prohibited religious activity in the 67 acres plot adjoining the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple, the District Administration prohibited observance of the festivities this occasion. Strange are the ways of our rulers. A court ruling had supposedly been violated 18 times in the last 18 years, starting from 1994 when the passions over the temple restoration on one hand and belligerent secularism on the other were still high. Yet, the state administration under Mulayam Singh Yadav allowed celebration of Ram Navami at Janmabhoomi and the age old tradition continued without a break.

A moot point to be noted here is that the celebrations used to be observed in the areas adjoining the mosque, primarily near the Ram Chabootra and the offerings made at Sita Ki Rasoi, areas which were not a part of the disputed land and had been in possession and worship of Hindus for centuries. It was these among the many properties gradually acquired by the VHP led Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas and later taken over by the Government. That the then ruling of Supreme Court in clubbing this land with the core temple for matters of litigation was curious without doubt, it seems curiouser that an annual event which had been performed for ages and even after the reclamation of the temple was prohibited all of a sudden.

This act follows the UP Government’s stoppage of the longest running Ramlila at Ayodhya by that most simple of means, simply depriving it of funds. Very certainly, the twin acts, the first much more serious than the other are neither isolated nor innocuous. The SP Government, buffeted by a belligerent Muslim community demanding a greater pound of flesh for their support and accusations of being inept in handling of communal riots (which incidentally had much more Hindu casualties), what better way to signal to the bellicose Muslim that it stands with it shoulder to shoulder in its wars. After all, wasn’t it the SP (then Janata Dal) which ordered the cold blooded massacre of unarmed Kar Sevaks on two separate occasions in 1990?

However, this is the SP, an offshoot of that cabal of former socialists who jettisoned their socialist legacies to embrace an electorally rewarding but highly toxic philosophy of blatant minority appeasement. So successful have they been that the original fountainhead of this philosophy, the Congress (I), with able guidance from its foreign born supremo was forced to join this race of competitive appeasement of only one segment of our Nation.

But, what about our communal parties and lunatic groups aka the BJP and the VHP? The former hijacked a movement launched by the latter to reap electoral benefits while the latter lost control of a mass mobilization which could actually have yielded results. The BJP is known by various monikers - the Indian Ku Ku Klux clan, the Hindu Supremacist party, the Far Right Party of India and so on. The VHP has lesser luck and is nowadays simply described a group of lumpen elements, those Hindu fundamentalists who only engage in moral policing. Hardly has a squeak been uttered on the new developments by those who had taken up cudgels on behalf of Rama not so long ago, in the process promising to apply balm to our damaged psyche.

While the label of a Hindu party has stuck to the BJP, what exactly is Hindu about the BJP? Post the agenda on Ram Temple liberation, what has the central leadership of the BJP done in the last two decades which would justify its reputation or notoriety? The last elections which were fought on the matters revolving around the Hindutva agenda were the assembly polls of 1993 and to a small extent in the Maharashtra assembly polls of 1995.  The 5 General Elections in between 1996 and 2009 had only one conspicuous aspect on Hindutva – its absence! True, at the grass-roots, the average BJP worker believes in the agenda which attracted him/her to the party in the first place and still, hoping against hope, dreams of a day when the Nation will deal with its people on equal terms. But that is only the average worker! Since 1995, BJP’s central leadership has steadily moved away from what they proclaimed and has used every available soap (even Jinnah Brand) to scrub themselves clean of the stain of past ‘sins’. If they do manage to come close to power, another soap, proselytizer family scion Jagan Mohan Reddy, will be used remove some more old stains. 

Then we have our flavor of the season, Narendra Modi – the Hindu Hriday Samrat! One will be excused if he gets an impression that our mainstream media is desperately short of people who are discerning, those who can observe and analyse and then report. It is true that Narendra Modi appealed to the Hindu hurt in 2002 elections, which followed the riots triggered by the ghastly burning of innocent men, women and children by marauding Muslim mobs at Godhra.  

But that was 2002. By 2004, Narendra Modi had decided that he had no further use of those emotions which led him to power and not only were the Hindu grass root organizations steadily squeezed and made defunct Modi sidelined all those who had pronounced Hindutva sympathies; Gujarat is probably the only state where such a large number of people have been convicted for participation in communal rights. Strangely, or perhaps not so much, even though the riots had over 30% Hindu casualty with over 40,000 Hindus taking refuge in relief camps, except for the Godhra train burning accused, hardly any Muslim rioter figures in the list of convicts. Does it indicate that only Hindus rioted and that the Hindus dead, either got killed by other Hindus or committed suicide, only to give a bad name to the hapless Muslims of Gujarat? But, selective justice is a proven way of endearing oneself to the bully. An appeal for death penalty to Mayaben Kodnani and Babu Bajrangi is only another step towards that journey of finding acceptance where he is shunned. Modi’s drive against roadside encroachments swallowed temples, but stopped when Muslims rioted at Vadodara. Certainly not an act of a fanatic Hindutvavadi! Why is the media then hell bent to anointing him with honorifics he clearly has not striven for?

What exactly had Narendra Modi done in the last decade to justify the title of Hindu Hriday Samrat? True, he has achieved a lot and will at least provide a solid alternate to this utterly corrupt and inept UPA Leadership. People may or should vote for Modi (or whosoever the NDA Prime Ministerial Candidate is), if for nothing else, simply to punish the Congress for what it has gifted us!

But, the point under discussion – Is the BJP a Hindu party or is Narendra Modi’s moniker of Hindu Hriday Samrat justified. Sadly or otherwise, the answer is an emphatic no. These are people who have been working hard to obliterate their old links and claims to fame (or infamy). So, why credit them with emotions they don’t possess? It is then, perhaps poetic justice that all their efforts have not yet succeeded in winning a seat on the high table of secularism (as it is practiced in India).

Show me the man...and I will show you the Law

A group of people commit murder and mayhem. A friend of theirs knows of the plans and helps them to safekeep the arms and ammunition meant for this act and in the process treats himself to some of the grenades and an assault rifle. Another person, a woman, handles these arms before they finally reach this fiend.

The slaughter done, the henchmen move away to safer lands while this friend remains their friend.  Unfortunately, the police sniff out the perpetrators and this friend too gets implicated, arrested and jailed. Only, this friend happened to be a Bollywood star, son of successful Bollywood stars who transitioned as successful politicians. So, not very long after his incarceration, he gets bail while most of the others apprehended for either committing, abetting or having knowledge of this carnage deservedly continue to serve time in prison.

Curiously, while all the other accused including the woman handler were convicted under TADA, this son of destiny was convicted only under Arms Act, which ensured that the punishment handed out to him would be lesser in quantum. Then, the highest court of this land reduced quantum of his punishment to the bare minimum prescribed under law! But worse was to come – his Bollywood fraternity striking up a powerful chorus in his support; politicians falling over each other to hand out good character certificates for him and an ex Supreme Court judge, now more famous than he ever was, pleading for clemency on grounds of his playing a role in some movie on Mahatma Gandhi! It probably escaped this ex-distinguished gent that this same accused had played a criminal in many of his movies. Does that mean that he be punished for those celluloid crimes?

Sympathising with a person is one thing but trying to unduly influence public policy is a different ballgame altogether. In the instant case, a pardon to this criminal will mean that each and every convict be pardoned for each of them has spent many more years in prison and have undergone as much, if not more of mental agony in the twenty year long conviction process. Even more seriously, this pardon would mean that there would be very few crimes which would demand punishment. For, on the scales of justice, few crimes committed by individuals would equal the act of a war unleashed on unsuspecting civilians, destroying lives of those who died and those who survived. Why should a roadside rowdy or a bootlegger then be punished when his crimes pale into insignificance when compared to this carnage?

The saving grace of this nauseating spectacle of the elite and the ruling classes conspiring to help out of their own is the visible lack of public support for this ill-advised drive. For a Nation prone to deifying celluloid heroes and vapid sportsmen, it is remarkable that not only are there no processions of fans demanding pardon, online discussion forums and comment boards across the web display a rare unanimity of opinion in wanting the sentence to be executed.

Public opinion is notoriously fickle but for now, it seems to be the only bet which may prevent the elite from playing with the law yet again.

For details of Sanjay Dutt’s role in the blasts, read here

Capital Punishment: Death by Pronouncement

The recent executions of two terrorists convicted of waging a war against the Nation have raised multiple questions. One, whether these executions were just and the second larger question, whether capital punishment as a concept should continue in the country? While it would be easy to paint the abolitionists as loonies who have unfortunately come to dominate public discourse in India, a cursory study of evolution of death penalty over the ages would strengthen the argument that reducing barbarity of this punishment should follow the course of civilization.

Death penalty has been observed to be a part of the legal system of almost all societies since the dawn of civilization. Perusal of historical tales of any land speak of executions conducted in gut wrenching manners - through the breaking wheel, boiling / burning to death, flaying, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement, crushing (including crushing by elephant), stoning, sawing, decapitation, devoured by hungry beasts, forced drowning, throwing over a cliff, blowing on a cannon and still many other forms which are too grotesque to record. Not infrequently, these executions were public spectacles with remains of the executed getting quartered and hung across various points of the city as a warning to other potential mischief makers.

Today, civilisational progress has ensured that except for a few societies, executions are more ‘humane’ now. However, while the case for reducing barbarity of executions finds a large general acceptance, the same is not true with the case for abolition of capital punishments altogether.

Quite often, executions are condemned as being infinitely worse than murder. In words of Albert Camus, the Nobel Prize winning author and proponent of ‘absurdism':

“An execution is not simply death. It is just as different from the privation of life as a concentration camp is from prison. [...] For there to be an equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life”

The premises which Camus and other abolitionists follow are:

·        Execution is murder by another name

·        Rather than redressing the previous crime, it adds to it

·        Demand for death penalty is nothing but a cry for revenge

·        The absence of details of the execution (on how the criminal suffered) in public discourse, is a manifestation of our subliminal revulsion at administered death

While it may be tempting to summarily dismiss the above objections as being personal beliefs of people who dwell in a make believe ideal world, each of the points raised deserve careful consideration.

It is not difficult to in principle agree with the assertion that net result being the same, i.e., extinguishment of life, executions can indeed be equated to murders. It is the second premise however, which shows the limits to this similarity. A non-judicial murder is generally driven by motives of a gain (personal or for a larger cause) together with the desire to inflict grievous harm on the victim. An execution, on the other hand is punishment for a crime which was heinous enough to distort the principles of human existence.

Likewise, while it cannot be effectively denied that death penalty is a form of revenge, this acceptance does not negatively impact the desirability of executions to be conducted for the simple reason that justice has to be consequential, retributive and restorative (wherever possible). If revenge is to be frowned upon, it would be difficult to argue in favor of any form of punishment; even a rap on the knuckles as punishment, by its very nature is a form of revenge.

Camus’s arguments on the ‘silence’ surrounding executions are factually correct but seem to confuse its causal relation with the latter. Murders are repulsive and it is natural that normal human beings would find the spectacle of death abhorrent. Except for those instances, where enlightened souls give up their lives, having ritualistically abjured food, death is rarely, if ever, a pretty sight. In case of death penalties, the sadness of death and disgust which it evokes co-exists with the general relief that the execution followed a just retributive process! It is here where a strong case exists to find more humane means of administering death so that our natural urge to adhere to humane boundaries get addressed.

The basis arguments on death penalty rest on the premises that fundamentally, execution is a form of Judicial Murder and stands in violation of basic Human Rights. 

As indicated earlier, executions are certainly killings for they are judicially legitimized acts of extinguishment of human lives. However, this reality does not ipso facto make capital punishment abhorrent. While there can be little doubt that the Right to Life is a basic universal right, premise that Human Life is inviolable under any circumstance has doubtful validity. Killing in valid instances of self defense is considered generally acceptable. Many societies accept controlled euthanasia as valid and more commonly, abortion of an unborn fetus is both legal and valid. Lest such comparison be seen as unseemly, due cognizance must be taken of the fact that these instances too violate what is otherwise believed to be inviolable. Particularly inexplicable is the status of abortion where the State sanctions a killing not because of any crime the unborn has committed, but because the parent(s) of the unborn do not desire that birth to happen. It is more even more inexplicable that in the debate on Capital Punishment, the abolitionists are generally those in favor of abortive ‘rights’ while the otherwise pro-lifers speak in favor of executions!

Moving beyond comparisons, if one were to evaluate Judicial execution on its own merit, it becomes necessary to account for various principles governing the concept of justice which defines it to be ‘retributive’ – punishment should be proportionate to the crime, be justly imposed and considered as morally correct. Not only does this principle appear intuitively fair, another factor which strengthens the case for retribution is the reality that civilization and rule of law means that the State takes over responsibility for ensuring safety and well being of ordinary citizen and the latter recourses to the State defined mechanisms to seek redress rather than taking up an avenger or a vigilante role. The intensity and depravity of all crimes are not equal and there are crimes innumerate where anything less than the death of the convict fail to meet the tests of fairness and equity. 

Finally, on whether Capital Punishment is a deterrent; contentions and questions on its deterrence value are irrelevant for unlike in nature where consequence of any act is pre-determined and certain, there is no certainly of punishment being inflicted for any crime. The person who commits a crime, irrespective of its magnitude, invariably does so with a belief that he will escape the consequences of punishment. If however, retribution, divine or man-made was to follow each lapse, the human civilization would be spared the need of maintaining an expensive and an only partially effective apparatus of law enforcement and justice. Presence of a large number of laws dealing with an even larger number of crimes is a potent proof that existence of laws and punishments has only a limited deterrent value. The course of justice cannot be served by not punishing convicted criminals only because there could be others who have escaped the dragnet of law.  Hence, if a person, after being through a due process of law, is found guilty of committing a crime so heinous that none other than death penalty is a proportionate punishment, the punishment, howsoever abhorrent it may seem to a few, must be carried out!

An Indian Phenomenon?

A woman is within her rights to refuse intercourse with her husband if she has already borne him sons or wants to lead a pious life or is barren or has given birth to still-born or is beyond her fertile age {3.2.45}

A wife may abandon her husband if he has a bad character or is away from home for a long time in a foreign country or is a traitor to the King or threatens the life of his wife or is declared an outcast,or becomes impotent {3.3.48}

A husband who falsely accuses his wife of not sleeping with him is to be punished {3.3.14}

A man raping a prostitute is to be fined 12 panas {4.13.38}

Each participant in the gangrape of a prostitute is to be fined 24 panas {4.13.38}

A man raping a woman living by herself is to be fined 100 panas {3.3.16}

A man raping a girl who has achieved puberty is to have his middle and index finger cut off {3.3.14}

A man raping a pre-pubescent girl is to have his hand cut off or a fine of 400 panas {4.12.1,2}

A man raping a woman already betrothed is to have his hand cut off or a fine of 400 panas {4.12.3,5}

If the girl dies as a result of rape, the rapist is to be put to death {4.12.1,2}

Special punishment for city guards who misbehave with a woman

A man wrongly accusing a woman of not being virgin is to be fined 200 panas and shall lose the right to marry her {4.12.15-19}

Verses from The Arthashastra. Translated by LN Rangarajan. Penguin Books 1992

Right from the epic age, the act of violating a woman against her will was considered amongst the most heinous of crimes and people committing such crimes were considered akin to those outside the pale of civilization. Till even a century and a half back, it was not unheard of clans upon clans sacrificing themselves to protect the honour of a solitary woman. To violate a virgin was a heinous crime and so was doing so to a married woman. Our tales of the old are replete with both instances of severe punishments following such crimes and of the society collectively rising up to avenge moral trespasses and to protect the honour of their womenfolk

It is hence, surprising that the rising incidence of rape has been attributed by many to the sick Indian mindset. Byte and megabytes have been used by the usual cabal of left wing commentators in trying to prove that rapes are a logical corollary to the Indian Religion, its male worshipping fetish, its ‘penile code’, its misogyny and so on. True, Indian society is not perfect by any stretch of imagination. India, particularly in its post medieval period has seen all sorts of heinous atrocities committed on its womenfolk  - forced sati, abandonment, sexual exploitation of widows, perpetual dependent status and so on. Our social reformers of this period admitted the shortcomings of Hindu society and then tried to redress them. Today, we are faced with two extreme positions – one which seeks to blame every evil on our societal norms and the other which pretends that such evils are a ‘gift’ of the western civilization.

It thence is a little sickening to find commentators gleefully attributing blame for such atrocities on women on Indian notion of masculinity and our misogyny. Some more circumspect personalities have chosen to blame sexual repression and falling gender ratio as the triggers for rise in these crimes. At the other end of the spectrum are those worthies who choose to blame the victim, her dress, co-education, mobiles and any other totem of modernity. 

Not even the most virulent of critics of all things traditional would probably go so far as to claim that rapes are only an Indian phenomenon. The number of rapes, both absolute and per lakh of population, which get reported in far more egalitarian and liberated of societies, Sweden, France, UK US, New Zealand et al are much higher than similar incidence in India. The city of London alone records some 3,000 rapes per annum. Each of these countries have a sex ratio which is higher than 1, have strong law protection and enforcement systems, have higher women participation in workforce and legislature and most significantly, are considered ‘progressive’ as far as all definitions of modernity and sexual liberation are concerned. So, these countries already have reached a level long back, which in the views of many worthies, would free India of the ‘rape’ phenomenon.

On the other extreme, any attempt to equate rape with a by-product of clothes, education et al needs to be dismissed right at the outset. If this were true, we would never see kids, children, senior citizens, nuns and sadhvis violated. Nor would we see any case where demure, ghunghat or hizab wearing, illiterate/ semi-literate tradition upholding women getting abducted and dishonoured.

However, like most human behaviors, no single factor can at all times be said to be the trigger or the cause behind sexual assaults. While there cannot be an instant linkage in between the crime and culture, sociologists and policy makers must analyze if the overt recourse to sex and sexual appear in popular culture, right from sports to entertainment, from personal products to consumer goods, have resulted in a situation where a hyper-sexualised individual constantly, even if sub-consciously scans for opportunities where gratification could be achieved!

Similarly, like with any other crime, the probability of a sexual assault getting committed are higher if the perpetrator feels that he can get away with it. Are strict laws an answer? Probably no, because the criminal fhere eels that firstly he won’t be apprehended and if he does get caught, there is little likelihood of he getting convicted. On the other hand, if there is a certainty that crime will be followed by punishment, the intending perpetrator is more likely to give up the idea of committing the crime. Countries like Congo, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Panama, Bolivia, all with dysfunctional law enforcement systems see high instances of sexual assault. Likewise, sexual assaults happen much more in lands ravaged by wars and riots, the common factor between all the above being absence of law enforcement. Rape is about enforcing power, a power to violate and this can be exercised only when the perpetrator feels both powerful and secure enough to commit this crime.

Harsh laws and an uncritical reliance on an alleger’s complaints are no substitute to a robust criminal justice system. Across cultures, violation of a woman’s right over her body has been recorded along with other crimes like murder and plunder, right from the dawn of civilization and there is little reason to believe (even if we all would like to), that such inhuman acts can be eliminated altogether. In an ideal world, we would not need doors in our houses but the moneys spent on security systems are testimony to use living in a non-ideal world. State protection, thence, cannot be a substitute for a reasonable effort on self-preservation.

Most importantly, let us bring strive to back a little morality and stop trying to search for mitigating reasons for crimes. There cannot be a reason good enough to violate someone’s honour. Unlike what the Hon’ble Supreme Court opines, a drunkard committing rape is not someone who knows not what he does. He drinks before assaulting for the drink reinforces the false sense of power he possesses. For a little regression please!

No – You are not allowed to have an opinion!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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