It is not about Rajiv Malhotra

Let me begin with a disclaimer. I have immense respect for Rajiv Malhotra’s for his invaluable contribution to Indic studies.

Most of us who try to keep themselves updated on current affairs would be aware of a storm which has broken out over Rajiv Malhotra’s alleged plagiarism of work authored by others, most notably in his book ‘Indra’s Net’.

For the uninitiated, Rajiv Malhotra is an entrepreneur, philanthropist, and a champion of the need for Hindus to define and interpret Hinduism. He has authored powerful articles and books, arguing that Indic studies are managed by a cabal of western academicians who insist on studying Hinduism from western cultural lenses and worse, insist on providing an interpretation, which is completely divorced from the reality a practitioner experiences.

For those at the receiving end of Mr Malhotra’s ire, he is but a gadfly, a wannabe scholar who wishes to gate-crash into that exclusive Brahminical club of scholars who have an impressive list of academic qualifications behind them.

Yet, unlike many others who had made similar attempts in the past to reclaim Hinduism, but had failed to gain much traction, Rajiv Malhotra could not be ignored by his detractors. Not encumbered by lack of finances, Mr Malhotra tasted blood (and won a legion of followers) with his seminal essay on Hinduism studies by western scholars – RISA Lila Parts 1 and 2. In due course of time, Mr Malhotra authored books, some with eminent names in the field of Indology, others with upcoming scholars. In all, he ensured that he was a hated but still a presence, which could not be ignored when Hinduism studies were being discussed.

Given the ‘esteem’ which Mr Malhotra commands in Indology circles, it was hardly surprising that allegations of his plagiarising works of others’ made his detractors delirious with joy. Wasting little time, the internet was awash with articles on how this charlatan’s frauds had been unearthed. Petitions were floated, asking Harper Collins to withdraw the book and little known journalists had a field day attempting to discredit Rajiv Malhotra and the entire genre of Hinduism studies associated with him.

After initial shock, when even right-leaning commentators condemned Rajiv Malhotra for his alleged acts of plagiarism, his supporters rallied around him. Mr Malhotra hit back through a series of articles and tweets, Madhu Kishwar floated a petition which soon raced to over 10,000 endorsements, while fellow travellers like Sankrant Sanu and Rajeev Balakrishnan extended their support.

Interestingly, the viciousness of attacks on Rajiv Malhotra only serve to corroborate his arguments that Hinduism studies are inherently biased and that an incestuous cabal of academicians, rooted in western ways, probably serving an insidious agenda, tend to guard their turf a little too zealously. It is they who decide, whether the ‘other’ is worthy enough to merit their attention and whether, what the ‘other’ professes, even if backed by decades of self-realisation, is good enough to pass their tests of ‘academic rigour’ 

In the given case, plagiarism was alleged by Richard Fox Young, who wrote to Harper Collins, the publisher to pulp the book, apologise and refund money to all those who had purchased the book in the first place. Soon, the usual suspects like Ananya Vajpayi rallied around Mr Young and floated a petition, which on last count had some less than 250 supporters.

An analysis of the purported plagiarism revealed them to be instances of sloppy referencing, i.e., while it was acknowledged that Prof Andrew Nicholson’s book ‘Unifying Hinduism’ had been referred to, endnotes provided, and many citations properly referenced, some were missed out and for some, while endnotes had been provided, the quotation was not indicated as a ‘quote’.

Normally, such cases are treated as what they are, i.e., sloppy referencing. A simple way to deal with it would have been to highlight it, ridicule Malhotra for the gaps and ask the misses to be corrected.

But no, these were treated as ‘proofs’ of Rajiv Malhotra’s intellectual dishonesty and the shallowness of his books and arguments. For such ‘crimes’, there was only one possible punishment, absolute banishment of the individual and his thoughts from any scholarly realm.

This is where many, who otherwise felt that Mr Malhotra should have accepted the gaps gracefully and re-issued a revised version, decided to stand in solidarity with him. The attack on Mr Malhotra was not an attack on the individual. It was a concerted attack on the very idea that Hindus needed to have a voice on how Hinduism is presented in the academia, that foreign scholars do not ‘own’ the scholarship of Hinduism, that practice and study can be an equal if not a stronger substitute for academic degrees (that too, of the ‘right’ kind).

One of the many ways in which sundry columnists mocked Mr Malhotra was their questioning of his academic credentials. Interestingly, the very same people who claimed that Mr Malhotra was no scholar, had no qualms in recognising Richard Fox Young as a respected scholar, when he is a theologian from a Christian seminary in the town of Princeton. So, a person who writes on Hinduism after having lived his life as a Hindu, and after years of study and analysis is not respectable enough but a person dealing with theology of an alien religion is respectable enough to question Mr Malhotra?

This is hardly surprising given that the left has consciously claimed that the right does not have intellectuals. How can the right have any intellectuals, when the left declares anyone on the right to be a non-intellectual? When works of even a Jadunath Sarkar or BB Lal get dismissed as trash, what hope does a Sita Ram Goel, a Dharampal or a Rajiv Malhotra can have to be accepted by the left? Like the case of Richard Fox Young shows, the left will declare any Tom, Dick or Harry an intellectual as long as they parrot the official line. It is not without reason that a cricket historian like Ramchandra Guha gets recognised as a modern historian and a travel writer with limited academic qualification in Indian history, like William Dalrymple, gets recognised as an authority on India. It will only be the left which will consider an economist like Amartya Sen to be the most eminent person suited to re-establish an ancient University of learning. If, tomorrow, Rajiv Malhotra has a change of heart and becomes a protégé of Sheldon Pollock school of Indology, his very same detractors are likely to hail him as the next best thing in Indology.

For argument’s sake, let us agree for a moment that Rajiv Malhotra did indeed lift passages from Andrew Nicholson and others with intent to plagiarise. Would that, in itself, rob Mr Malhotra’s works of all merit? If not, then why is there so much of clamour to dismiss all of his work, and worse, all his theories? It is only the security which an incestuous cocoon provides, which can prompt Prof Wendy Doniger (the one who can make kinky sex interpretations of even a cow grazing peacefully) to joyously claim that ‘Mr Malhotra does not know anything of the subjects he writes on’. Quite rich coming from someone whose each book is a minefield of errors, faulty assumptions, wrong interpretations, and simply put, nonsensical conclusions! 

Certainly, Mr Malhotra’s conduct in the entire state of affairs could have been better. While the allegations around plagirasim of Andrew Nicholson can be treated as sloppy referencing and the one claim on lifting of a line from Swami Krishananda can be dismissed outright, there still are some issues around non-referencing of works of Shrinivas Tilak in Indra’s Net. Whatever Mr Malhotra may claim now, he has not been very kind to even those on this side of the fence, who he believed, had plagiarised from him. 

Second, his act of first calling Andrew Nicholson an ally, then to claim that he was a mediocre scholar and that Unifying Hinduism was a sub-standard work and that he would be removing all citations from the revised version of the book, seems to be a case of childish pique. Maybe he had no option left, driven the wall, the way he way by Nicholson. Yet, one cannot call a book ‘brilliant’ while referencing and then claim it to be ’sub-standard’.

The world of Indological studies is weird. In any scientific discipline, discoveries or inventions by amateurs are not dismissed by scientists simply because of a lack of ‘adequate’ and ‘kosher’ academic qualification of the amateur. Astronomy in particular, has been made quite rich by amateurs and the scientific community has recognised those contributions by naming galactic bodies in their honour. Even those disciplines, which fall in between humanities and sciences, like archaeology, have respected contribution of amateurs. Then what is so different about Indology that the existing power structure allows entry of only a certain ‘type’ of people? Under the current structure, a book by a Shankaracharya, (who would have spent all his years studying scriptures) on a Dharmashastra, would not be considered ‘scholarly’ but some interpretation of a translated work by a non-Hindu in some university, when guided by one of Wendy’s children, would be considered authoritative. This power anomaly ensures that the interpretations of Sanskrit, made by, say Pandits of Maths, who have spent long years in study of scriptures in their original language, carry zero weight but the words of a Wendy Doniger, who doesn’t know the difference between even ‘Asakti’ and ‘Anasakti’ get treated as gospel.

Many like to claim that Indian right-wing, unlike that in the west, does not have intellectuals. The reason why the west has recognised right-wing intellectuals is that the right-wing created its own ecosystem. Aware that the left would never accord respect due to them, they bypassed it and created a movement powerful enough to be taken note of and formally recognised. Unfortunately for India, such a situation is nowhere near possible. Such ecosystems require political support and even the allegedly Hindu governments in India have little time for Hindu scholars.

It is a rare occasion that a publisher makes unsubstantiated allegations against an author unconnected to them. But when Permanent Black did precisely that, you know that you cannot let down someone who has been on the forefront of the struggle to reclaim Hinduism studies.

Two events, fracas over Wendy Doniger’s horrible book and Rajiv Malhotra’s alleged plagiarism, have only served to highlight the need for Hindus to reclaim scholarship on Hinduism.

A Review of Vir Sanghvi's Mandate: Will of the People

Have just completed ‘Mandate: Will of the People’ by Vir Sanghvi. Recommended by a friend as an interesting read on Indian Elections, it had a very flattering Foreword penned by Amish Tripathi. We all know that Vir writes well, is a Delhi insider (remember Radia tapes) and is a tenured journalist and a food hack. Encouraged enough, I managed to complete this 137 page, large-spaced, large-lettered booklet in one sitting.

The book professes to be an ‘easy-to-read’ book on India’s recent political history, focused on events leading to General Elections 1971 onwards and their impact on the Nation. In his introduction, Vir mentions the huge efforts (months of research and travel and the intense efforts put in to collate and synthesize data) that had gone in to prepare for his TV show and its offshoot, this book.

I have not watched the TV show and hence cannot comment on it. But as far as the book is concerned, it is difficult to visualize if this weakly written, typo-ridden, error-prone and superficial book actually required that much of an effort to compose. There is hardly any revelation or insight in the book which any regular observer of Indian politics would not be aware of. Since Vir makes it very clear that this is a book on events the way ‘he-saw-it’ and does not adopt a non-biased tone, it is excusable if he pushes a particular Point of View. Yet, ignoring important events and personalities only leads to the reader getting a half-picture which is probably as dangerous as the reader remaining ignorant. Inexcusable though are the factual errors which can jar sensibilities of any informed reader.

Vir states (Pg 55) that the 1984 General Elections resulted in the biggest majority ever in India with the Congress winning 50.7% of the votes and 416 seats. However, as per the Election Commission of India, the Congress had won only 404 seats and 49.1% of votes. Even if the data from delayed elections in Punjab and Assam get added, the Congress won 10 more seats, a total of 414. But, with a vote share of 32.14% in these 2 states, the overall vote share of the party comes down to 48.12%, a far cry from the claimed 50.7%. Fact remains, no party has won over 50% of votes in any parliamentary election in India yet.

While Vir’s absurd statement on Hindus ‘destroying’ Buddhist temples can be dismissed as a manifestation of his ‘secular’ sensibilities, it is difficult to agree when he claims that the agitation for liberation of Ram Janmabhoomi gained traction because of the Shah Bano judgement. People with longer memories will remember that the agitation had started taking roots 1983 onwards and its gaining steam in the late 80s had much to do with the very nature of campaign strategy designed by the VHP and assorted seers.

What is striking about Vir’s analysis of 1989 elections is the complete whitewash of the BJP’s alliance with the Janata Dal, the various complexities of this arrangement and the BJP’s spectacular ascendance.

Still, Vir’s analysis of 1989 elections seems sparkling when compared to his take on 1991 elections. Vir claims that Rajiv Gandhi was drawing adulating masses and was set for a comeback. Was it so? Election coverage reports from those days do speak of hysterical masses, but in the public meetings and rallies of BJP leaders. Vir conveniently ignores the fact that a few phases of 1991 elections were postponed by 3 weeks in the aftermath of Rajiv Gandhi’s killings and that a sympathy wave buoyed up Congress’s performance in the remaining phases. Even a cursory analysis of results within the same state (Madhya Pradesh for example) would show that the Congress gained heavily in the second round of polls. 

Counter-intuitive is his take on the events leading to 1991 elections. Vir professes that VP Singh would have won elections had they been held immediately after he had lost the confidence vote. This is nothing but wild speculation without any basis for National sentiments at that time seemed heavily tilted in favor of the BJP, driven to a large extent by Lalu’s act of stopping LK Advani from completing his yatra. Anyway, the elections which could have happened in Dec-Jan happened in May-June, not that many months later. The Janata Dal slipped badly and the Backwards (at least the non-Yadavs) who would have supported JD (as per Vir) ended up supporting the BJP in large numbers.

Another set of curious assertions which Vir makes are around Chandrashekhar's ascendancy to Prime Ministership. Vir rightly states that Chandrashekhar was expecting the PM's post in 1989. Yet, Vir's narration of the late leader's acceptance of Congress's support seems to paint a picture of his sacrifice rather than fulfillment of his life-long dream. Whitewashed are the events leading upto Chandrashekhar's resignation. While Vir does mention the widely held theory that the cause of Congress's withdrawal of support was it's fear that the then PM was close to resolving the Ayodhya dispute, Vir completely ignores the fracas over alleged surveillance on Rajiv, ostensibly being conducted on the PM's order. While the actual event may have been as significant as Delhi police asking for Rahul Gandhi's shoe size, it was this allegation which resulted in cutting short of Chandrashekhar's tenure as the Prime Minister.

Yet another example of Vir’s ‘secular’ sensibilities is his claim that in 1996 elections, Atal Bihari Vajpayee had ‘reclaimed’ BJP’s leadership from LK Advani. Well, history records that Advani had suo motu declared Vajpayee as BJP’s PM candidate in 1995, much before he was implicated in the Hawala scam. How can a person be said to have ‘reclaimed’ what was actually ‘handed over’ to him?

Then comes another blooper. Vir claims that Atal Bihari Vajpayee was the star of 1997 election campaign! How could that be when elections were held in 1998 and not 1997?

Anyway, the treatment of Jayalalitha’s withdrawal of support of the parliamentary confidence vote is callous. No mention of the infamous tea party where Jaya and Sonia came together, no mention of the role played by Subramanian Swamy (then stoutly against anything remotely associated with the RSS) and again, no mention of theatrics involving Giridhar Gomango and even of Saifuddin Soz. That single vote which brought down Vajpayee can be attributed to any of the 3 (Mayawati and the abovementioned).

Vir gets his seat count wrong again when he attributes the NDA as having won 296 seats in the 1999 elections. Accounting for the Telugu Desam, the NDA had 304 seats. 

As for the analysis of 2004 polls, it is passable but for the inordinate focus on India Shining. No doubt that India Shining was a horrendous campaign but it was not the only reason for BJP’s defeat. BJP’s arrogance, the depletion of its alliance and antipathy / sullen indifference of its core support group played at least an equal, if not more important role in the BJP’s well deserved defeat. 

That apart, the crowning glory (Pg 122) amongst all the ridiculous assertions made in the book reads thus: ‘…the seeds for the fall of the UPA were sown in the very first years of the Government’. Now, in the Indian democratic setup, any Government (barring J&K) has a term of 5 years. Here, the UPA not only completed its tenure of 5 years, it got re-elected and ruled for a full 5 years again. So, just how can it be said that the so-called seeds of the Government’s fall in 2014 were sown in 2004?

Vir’s analysis of 2009 elections is good enough except for his laughable contention (Pg 131) that the BJP was projected to win these elections. No credible poll at any point of time (except those which Vir seems to have smoked up) projected this possibility. All polls at all times predicted the return of the UPA though with an improved performance from the NDA. And how could any poll have predicted any scenario otherwise when the BJP had lost even more allies and Advani’s Prime Minister candidature (with his now iconic karate chop image staring from hoardings) even more uninspiring than that of Manmohan Singh? Vir ignores the role played by Rahul Gandhi in those polls. Public memory is short and given the ridicule surrounding Rahul Gandhi of 2014, it is difficult now to visualize that the same Rahul Gandhi was looked upon as a beacon of hope by vast sections of rural populace and at least in states like Uttar Pradesh, his campaign had had a direct positive impact on the Congress’s performance.

The closing chapter on Elections 2014 is good but lacks any worthwhile comment on what made Narendra Modi the phenomenon that he became. 

The book is not without merits though. It is a light read, something you could pick up for a short flight or while waiting at the Doctor’s reception and still manages to provide a good deal of information for the unaware. What stands out is the author’s personal recollection of the 1971 election campaign when Indira Gandhi’s pro-poor stance drew mass hysteria. What is particularly good is the author’s take on Punjab terrorism and his articulation of the anti-Hindu stance of radical Sikhs and the killings they had unleashed. Vir does good service to history when he highlights the role played by a systematic media campaign in influencing public mood in 1984. Good again are his portraits of some personalities like that of VP Singh. The high point though are some bitchy comments like: ‘But Manmohan Singh had his admirers. Most people who did not know him well regarded him as a humble, decent apolitical figure…..’, which say much more than what entire paras would. 

Overall, an underwhelming book.

Sorry Amish. Loved your Shiva trilogy. But you are way off mark when assessing Vir Sanghvi’s ‘effort’.

Census 2011: Demographic Changes in India

Earlier this month, the Government selectively released (unofficially) some census data on religious demographics in India. While the delay in reporting data is inexplicable, the data in itself confirmed a couple of trends observed in the last 3 decades. These broad trends are: 1. Rising share of Muslim Population in India; and 2. Decreasing share of Hindus in overall population.

However, the reporting mainstream media was, as it is wont to be, heavily skewed. It primarily highlighted 2 aspects: 1. Falling growth rate of Muslims; and 2. The ‘paltry’ increase of Muslims population share at 0.8%. This, the media votaries mocked, was a certain proof that all the talk by the Hindu Right of demographic change was nothing but fear-mongering.

While many Indians, in their comments to the purported ‘analytical’ news reports tried to highlight the gross errors in reporting, comments do not make or mar impressions. Some right-leaning websites did try to draw more realistic conclusions from the partially released data, but owing to their limited reach, it is doubtful if they would have even 0.5% of an impact which a Times of India report declaring ‘All is Well’ can have.

Of all such notes, the one by Dr JK Bajaj, India’s leading demographer, on Indiafacts is by far the best. There is hardly any aspect, either historical or current, which is not covered by Dr Bajaj, who presents and dissects available data dispassionately.

One might ask the need of this blogpost if Dr Bajaj’s analysis is so comprehensive. My humble submission is – while I am ill-equipped to add anything worthwhile to Dr Bajaj’s analysis, this post could probably make it reach out to handful of more people, providing key points in brief.

• As per the census data, growth rate of Muslim population in between 2001 and 2011 was 24.4% as against a general growth rate of 17.7%. What most of the mainstream reports did not state that this 17.7% comprises the growth rate of ALL communities and not communities other than Muslims. Unreported was the growth rate of Hindus, which at 14.5% is lower than the Muslim growth rate by 9.9% in absolute terms. When compared to the Hindu rate of growth, Muslim growth rate is higher by a whopping 68.8% (9.9% over 14.5%). Even when taken against the mis-directional National average, it is still 37.9% higher (6.7% over 17.7%)
• Much has been made by MSM on the decline of Muslim growth rate from 29.5% in 2001 to 24.4% now. However, what has hardly been reported is a steeper decline in growth rate of Hindus, i.e., from 20.3% to 14.4%. Yet again, apologists have tried to attribute higher growth rate of Muslims to their supposed poverty and illiteracy. Yet, this does not explain Kerala, where Muslims have risen from 24.7% to 26.6% of the population despite being much better off compared to Hindus, both economically and socially. Even the much poorer Pakistan (20%) and Bangladesh (14%) have lower growth rates. So much so for illiteracy and poverty driving Muslim population growth.
• Now the ‘paltry’ growth of Muslims from 13.4% to 14.2% of the population. For one, Muslims share in population expanded by around 6% over its base (14.2% against 13.4%). In the same period, Hindus share in population dropped by around 2.7% on its base (78.35% against 80.5%). As a result, for the first time since independence, Hindus are less than 80% of the population.
• In the last 60 years, Hindus have dropped by 6.8% on its base (from 84.1% in 1951 to 78.35% in 2011). In the same period, Muslim share in population has grown by a whopping 45% (14.2% in 2011 against 9.8% in 1961). As such, any impression that the Muslim growth rate is ‘paltry’ is simply self delusional. Of even more importance is the fact that Muslims have registered equivalent growth of 0.8% population share in the last 3 censuses consecutively.
• In many states, particularly Assam (34.2% in 2011 against in 30.9% in 2001), Kerala (26.6% in 2011 against in 24.7% in 2001), West Bengal (27% in 2011 against in 25.2% in 2001), Uttarakhand (13.9% in 2011 against 11.9% in 2001), Goa (8.4% in 2011 against 6.8% in 2001), Haryana (7% in 2011 against in 5.8% in 2001) and Delhi (12.9% in 2011 again 11.7% in 2001), share of Muslims in population has risen much faster. It is this demographic growth which has result in de-Hinduisation of villages after villages, in fact, whole of Talukas in Bengal and Assam and disturbingly being seen in pockets of North Kerala now.
• In 1909, UN Mukherjee had authored a book, Hindus, a dying race, based on his study of the continuous decrease of the Hindu’s share of population in undivided India. While the doomsday scenario painted by the author seems fanciful, it is a fact that the in 1881 (when the first census was taken), Muslims accounted for 20% of the Indian population. In 1941, they accounted for 24.3% while in 2011, Muslims comprise around 31.8% of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. For the Hindus, it has meant that from being close to 8 out of 10, they are now only 6 out of every 10 people inhabiting the Indian subcontinent.

Why are the above figures important? All of us understand the power of compounding in finances. How can then one assume that compounding would work differently in population growth? If Pakistan had a growth rate equivalent to Bangladesh, its population would have been lower by around 5 million. Likewise, if Bangladesh had a growth rate similar to Pakistan, its population would have been higher by some six million. A widening gap between Hindu and Muslim growth rates simply means that the Muslim population share would keep on increasing in a geometric progression.

And all this is assuming that the census data is correct. To assume that is again delusional. Any observer / resident of Andhra, Tamil Nadu and tribal belts of Orissa, Bengal and Jharkhand would vouch that the Christian population has increased dramatically. Data submitted by churches themselves indicate that Christian population in India is closer to 4% rather than the declared 2%. If we consider data reported by evangelists as authentic, then Christians have an even higher population share. Plain and simple, currently a Scheduled Caste person loses reservation benefits if the fact of conversion is reported. So, while people may get baptized, they may worship and get married in churches, their official documents record them as Hindus. If, the current Government, in its urge to prove its secular credentials, does extend reservation benefits to Dalit Christians, rest assured, the reported Christian population in India is certain to register an exponential growth.

When people talk of Bangladeshi infiltration, they miss that infiltration of Hindu refugees actually pushes up the Hindu population share and growth rate. That it is still relatively lower only shows the high growth rate of Abrahmic religions in India. And since it can reasonably be assumed that while Hindus are converting to Islam (particularly of the Love Jihad variety), the scale of conversion is very low compared to Christian proselytization. As such, even when accounting for Muslim Bangladeshis in India, Muslim growth is to a large extent, is organic in nature.

What is the cause behind higher growth of Muslims? While cultural and political factors (including infiltration) certainly contribute, can some blame not be apportioned to successive governments of India?

Indian Government has been pushing for population control since decades. While the message for population control may seem less pervasive now, what is curious is the focus of family planning – exclusively a Hindu face. Of all campaigns run by the Government, hardly any, if at all, advert had any Muslim character (either in name or appearance) who was facing issues on account of a large family or to who the message of family planning was being disseminated. Remember your Doordarshan days and those sundry ads in various newspapers and hoardings? The woman in question would always be wearing a bindi and sindoor. Ever remember a woman with a burqua or a hijab? Or a man with a skull cap or a Muslim beard? Maybe the Government’s efforts were not conscious. But, subliminally, with Muslims missing from the frame, the message was that it was the Hindus who needed to stop breeding. 

If only a change in demographics did not mean a change in culture, taboos and territory, population growth of any community, for its own sake, would have hardly been of any concern.

No Banana Republic, we are an Animal Farm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom of Speech! Anyone?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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