The Liberal Reinforcement of the image of a 'bad' Muslim

Disclaimer – In one of my earlier posts on Facebook, I had commented that death penalty for Yakub Memon should be re-looked at, given that he surrendered and had helped in the investigations. However, subsequent readings of the case, including the posthumous column by B Raman (which was incidentally sought to be leveraged in extracting a commute), made it clear that Memon was arrested in Nepal and once in custody, cooperated like any other criminal in the hands of police. If the ostensible reasons why he should not have been hanged were not correct, there is little one could have validly argued in his favor.

---

It is a sign of the dystopian times we live in that hanging of a convicted terrorist was both preceded and is now being followed up by collective breast-beating of our own people.

Broadly, people who protested against the death sentence for Yakub Memon can be divided into two categories – a small minority which is against the concept of capital punishment and the larger majority, which prefers to claim that Yakub was hung because he was a Muslim.

The above distinction is not water-tight as quite a lot among those who are against capital punishment also joined the chorus of ‘a Muslim being hung’. Interestingly, though these people (intrinsically against capital punishment) form a vocal and influential group, there has been no effort from them to get either the Supreme Court or the Government strike down the provisions allowing death penalty in ‘rarest of the rare cases’. It is only when the hanging of a convict draws near that these people dust off their outrage masks and sign petitions and mouth platitudes in television studios.

In any case, the commitment of those claiming to be morally against capital punishment seems shaky when most of them celebrated the award of death penalty to Dara Singh (murderer of missionary Graham Staines and his two children) and registered their disappointment when the higher courts commuted it to life imprisonment. Just how credible are these voices when they resonate with anguish when Babu Bajrangi and Dr Mayaben Kodnani get ‘mere’ life imprisonment rather than the well-deserved noose?

This blogger has previously argued that there is little rational in the arguments forwarded in favour of abolishing the death penalty. Among the many articles penned recently, the one by R Jagannathan is a pretty good defence of capital punishment in India.

Still, while the first group of naysayers have at least some moral arguments against capital punishment, it is the second group, which sees any act only through the prism of identity, which is more dangerous to our society. Such people strike at the very roots of a community as for them, sectarian identities take precedence above all and any person is condemned to be hostage to the identity he was born with. For them, a person's gender, class, religion, education, caste, physical attributes, are all what matters and subsume the most noble or the most ignoble achievements that person could have made.

It was quite unfortunate and at the same time, revealing, that the hanging of Yakub Memon coincided with the demise of a much-loved ex-President of India, Dr APJ Abdul Kalam. Dr Kalam’s passing to the beyond was met with an outpouring of public grief, the scale of which should humble most politicians. Only a few days later, a convicted terrorist was hung to death. His funeral procession was attended by thousands and even in far off Kashmir, the prayer for the departed saw huge crowds and violent protests. The waters were further muddied by many politicians who claimed that Yakub was killed for no fault or that he would not have been killed had he not been a Muslim.

Not to be left behind have been journalists of various hues, who have parroted similar arguments against Memon’s hanging.

All this hullabaloo have made a couple of facts all the more clear – 1. Terrorists have no religion when Muslims commit acts of terrorism. However, if these irreligious/non-religions terrorists do get punished, they become Muslims all of a sudden. 2. Any act committed by a Muslim in the name of religion, howsoever abominable, enjoys a broad degree of support from the ummah. Before I get condemned (I still will be), let it be answered if there has been any voice from the Muslim community or its leadership which says that Yakub was a party to the murder of innocents and was a terrorist?

Finally, and this comes from a gutter piece by Wajahat Qazi, the identity which Muslims in India desire, seems of a ‘Bad Muslim’ - of a community which is regressive, violent and which cares for little but their Islamic identity.

Even at the time when Dr Kalam had been nominated for the post of President of our Republic, quite a few of our fiberals (fake liberals) had commented that he was being rewarded for being a Sanghi Muslim. A few Muslim leaders had gone a step ahead and questioned the very nature of Dr Kalam’s Islam, citing his vegetarianism, his love for Veena and his unconcern with sectarian identities. Some were more cryptic ‘Dr Kalam is not a Muslim leader’. Even in his death, these people did not spare Dr Kalam and insisted on regurgitating their hatred for a noble soul who acted like an Indian all his life.

For any rational being, the hollowness of a claim that ‘Muslims are under siege in India’ would have been defeated by the very sight of an adulating public grieving for an ex-President who was a devout Muslim, the son of an Imam.  Yet, those against the very idea that people need to and can rise over their humble backgrounds, overcome challenges and discard identity based theatrics, find it convenient to dismiss Dr Kalam. Howsoever abominable Wajahat Qazi’s piece maybe, he is only giving voice to those many who believe that ‘Good Muslim’ (one who is assimilated into the cultural, social and politico-economic fabric of India) cannot be representative of Indian Muslims. For him and his ilk, it is only the ‘Bad Muslims, the one with the wild-eyed fanatical look, always alert for the cry ‘Islam in danger’ and active participant in violent and criminal acts, who can be said to be the ‘True Muslims’

Is it really what India and the Muslim community wants?

One can only shudder at the realization that such thoughts are becoming more and more mainstream. How are the Wajahat Qazis’ of world any better than those handful of fanatics who would want all Muslims to be transported to lands outside India? In fact, they are worse for they want Muslims to remain Muslims first and Muslims only, and backwards, and unassimilated into the cultural, social and politico-economic fabric of India. But why? So that they can claim that Muslims are deprived and not allowed to assimilate into cultural, social and politic-economic fabric of India!

If our Nation cannot make itself punish a convicted terrorist, just how do we propose to fight terrorism? The only way left for is just to succumb, lay down our arms, open our gates and invite them to pillage, rape and kill us with impunity.

-----

Many of our liberals, even when contending that Yakub was hung for being a Muslim, have taken a more nuanced stand and are demanding that justice be done for other cases of terrorism as well. Terrorism, as defined by them, equals riots (in which only the Hindu rioters are to be punished) and Malegaon, Samjhauta and Mecca Masjid blasts, in which involvement of some Hindu groups is being claimed.

Howsoever strongly one may condemn the politics and utterances of Owaisi brothers, one cannot deny the truth in the claim that Sikh terrorists and LTTE terrorists, guilty of equally heinous crimes, were spared the noose because of political support. Of course, the other part of the claim that Yakub was hung because he was happened to be a Muslim bereft of any support, is ridiculous. Still, the very fact of the first part of the statement being factually correct gives a strong reason for an already suspicious people to get swayed by rhetoric of the second claim.

There cannot be any confusion on the fact that punishment for terrorist acts must be swift and at least, in proportion to the crime. The commuting of death sentences of other terrorists only underlines our queasiness, the shameless opportunism of our political classes and our degeneration of our collective sense of nationhood.

Our Nation stands compromised and our war on terror stands compromised when people are effectively pardoned simply because they belong to the ‘right’ community, class or religion.

At the same time, let it be very clear that riots cannot be equated to terrorism. To qualify as terrorism, the act must attack the symbol of power/authority of the state and must aim at overthrow of the present order or at least carving out of a new order. Normally, riots even with all their baggage, fall far short of attempting a systemic change.

In the given case, the liberal argument is around action-reaction. That the Mumbai blasts were a reaction to the Babri Masjid demolition and so justified in some sense. However, the riots which hit Mumbai in December 1992 were a reaction to the demolition. The riots which started again with the burning alive of a Dalit family at Radhabai chawl in Jogeshwari were again a reaction to the demolition. Yet, when the Shiv-Sena led backlash started from January 8, 1993, why is that not seen as a reaction to the preceding days of murder and mayhem?

For argument’s sake, let us imagine a scenario where riots would have followed the blasts (they were a very real possibility then). Would they have been considered a reaction? 

Yes, those involved in riots should be punished. Collectively, let us make sure that the killers of over 300 Hindu victims are brought to justice as well. Let us follow up with the courts asking them to show the same alacrity in pursuing the cases against Muslim rioters the way they have done in the cases involving Muslim victims.

As regards the alleged involvement of Hindu groups in some blasts - even if the allegation is true, they were a 'reaction' to the series of blasts conducted by Islamic terrorists in Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore, Jaipur, Hyderabad, Varanasi and numerous other places in India. So the fiberal theory of action-reaction applies here too. Unfortunately, the perpetrators of those blasts have not even been apprehended, leave alone conviction and punishment. So, using the logic of Owaisi brothers, should we say that the Muslim perpetrators were let go because of political support but some innocent Hindus incriminated without basis?

And in case the allegation is not true? In what is increasingly becoming clear as a case of attempted frame-up, there is hardly any evidence against Sadhvi Pragya, Aseemanand, Col Purohit and sundry other accused. In spite of years of efforts, even proper chargesheets have not been filed against them. Some claims like that of Samjhauta express being bombed by them seem even more trumped up as US agencies had identified Islamic terrorists to be behind those blasts.

Much hue and cry had been made on the arrest of ‘innocent Muslim youths’ on terror charges. While it would seem that any Muslim becomes ‘innocent’ by the very fact of his arrest, for the hapless right-wing Hindu, even trumped up charges are Cain’s mark of their crime. One does hope that the courts do not get influenced by the brouhaha over current happenings and consider their bail applications dispassionately.

Why Bahubali raised the hackles of our liberals?

As far as general impressions are concerned, only those who are against liberal values like ‘freedom of speech’ or ‘the expressive right of art’ are the ones protesting against books and movies. But each attacker needs to have a corresponding defender, so we see that liberal support for all those books and movies, which hurt sentiments of all but the minorities, is in direct proportion to the protests they generate, i.e., higher the protests, louder the support decibel. 

Yet, the protest against books and movies are not limited to the crass, uneducated Hindutva bigot. Our liberals do not hesitate to do so, if it is their sensibilities which get hurt. Last year, we had some dissatisfied souls ranting against Priyanka Chopra’s depiction of Mary Kom in a biopic of the same name, ostensibly because this act reeked of discrimination against the North-Eastern people. Given that there is a concerted campaign (which the Government has succumbed to) to equate stereotyping with criminal racism, objections against Priyanka Chopra can be considered to be one element of the all-round campaign. Yet, given the visible absurdity of the charge, not many of our ‘mainstream’ liberals picked up the thread strongly.

While there certainly could have been others, the first time I registered a strong ‘liberal’ backlash against a movie was on the then much-anticipated, Filhaal, by Meghna Gulzaar. Starring Tabu, Sushmita Sen, Sanjay Suri and Palash Sen, it was the story of how a friend offers to be a surrogate for her buddy who miscarried and could not conceive again. It was a bad movie but still, there was a strong feminist reaction, with the movie being called regressive, misogynistic and being generally condemned for pushing the idea that motherhood was a legitimate obsession for a woman. My bigoted conservative self could not understand what the hullabaloo was all about. Very clearly, both the female characters were exercising their respective choices. If motherhood was a choice for one, did it really become a lesser choice because it did not fit in the world-view of some feminists? At the same time, the other character, even when unwed and even without taking her boyfriend/fiancée into confidence, had offered and became a surrogate for her friend. I would have imagined that in any normal universe, such acts would have been hailed by feminists as an ultimate expression of a female’s individuality and her right over her own body.

But clearly, the film failed some liberal tests and was outrightly condemned for condemning women to treat motherhood as a gift. Thankfully, the film flopped badly (well-deserved, I would say) and since there was no point flogging a movie which people were not interested in, the outrage taps soon ran dry!

The next movie which was strongly in the bad books of our liberals was the banal ‘Vivah’. This Shahid Kapoor-Amrita Rao starrer was condemned for making the couple, particularly the would-be bride, waiting expectantly for marriage, as if it was the most important thing in a girl’s life! Could she not have focussed on her career instead, our liberals screeched? It became more of their duty to save our young generations from the baneful influence of the film since it succeeded in becoming a hit, rather unexpectedly.

Other than that, there has been an outpouring of outrage against 'Sunny Deol movies' for being jingoistic and portraying Pakistan in a 'bad' light. Funny when those outraging otherwise claim that actors are distinct from the roles they enact. In any case, the outrage against 'Sunny Deol movies' are more of an afterthought, i.e., it has become fashionable to diss them now, rather than at the time when they were becoming huge box-office hits.

It is not very often that our liberals must watch Indian cinema. If they have to, it must either be a film already ‘approved’ by some western expert, or, should have something to offend sensibilities, preferably of the supposed majority. It is hence, not uncommon to hear general condemnation of our movies from our self-appointed conscience keepers, on grounds of their stupidity, misogyny, some or the other 'ism', yada yada.

Even when accounting for the disdain our elites have for popular cinema, the backlash against Bahubali has been unexpected. Some of the criticism is so contrived that it would put CGI used in the movie to shame. One claimed that Avantika was raped in the movie. Another hack claimed that the movie depicted tribals in a bad light. Others simply claimed that it was racist and sexist.

But was it really so? All the 4 female characters in Bahubali (Avantika, Shivgami, Bahubali’s foster mother and Devsena) had ample screen time and strong on-screen persona. The Kalkeyas were never declared or depicted as tribals. On the other hand, Devasena's people seemed did seem tribal and even Bahubali’s foster community was very clearly living in harmony with nature. Were they really depicted as savages? More importantly, just how is a barbaric attacker supposed to be depicted? A bunch of upper collared gents petitioning the attacked to handover their lives peacefully and without protest.

So, why is Bahubali getting the goat of our liberals? Is it because, ahem, this movie on early medieval India reeks of Hindu imagery, be it the presence of shaven headed, tuft carrying Brahmins (not ridiculed for a change), chanting of hymns, opulent worship of idols and a storyline which carries imprints from numerous Indian tales, right from Krishna-lila?

In fact, it is not about Bahubali alone. Though the television has spawned such abominations as ‘The Sword of Tipu Sultan’, ‘Jodha Akbar’ and even ‘Razia Sultan’, the bulk of historicals (if they can be called that, given the liberties they take with history) are based on stories of Indian heroes and heroines. Almost without fail, each of these depict an era and culture (rituals, festivals, dress, language etc.) which is without doubt, Hindu. It is then not without reason that Ashok Banker’s stands against ‘Hindutva-isation’ of television. Anything which depicts India’s past, untainted by the liberal version of secularism cannot be held kosher.

The unabashed use of Indian imagery in Bahubali is simply the reason why our liberals are so protective of their version of Indian history. Indian culture (and not some contrived idea of India) is a way of life defined by Indic religions. Howsoever much would the liberal like us to believe, Islam in India remained an import, aloof from the subjugated population, moulding itself on primarily Persian, and secondarily on Arabic and Turkic cultures. In fact, ridicule and rejection of the 'Hindu' way of life and lusty embrace of the 'superior' foreign cultures was a feature common to both Islamic and Christian invaders. Just how can then the Indian way of life be reflective of a style which is anything but India?

When the liberals still claim that telecast of Ramayana, a tale which sprung from our soil, which deeply influenced not only ours, but all ancient cultures which came in touch with us, was a communal act of promoting Hindutva, Bahubali which has been served with dollops of subliminal Hinduism is certain to raise their hackles. Perhaps we should remake Ramayana. Only, this time Ram better be wearing a skull cap and Hanuman a cross. Sita though, will definitely need to be a Hindu. Only then will they fit in 'the idea of India'.

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’.