Riots after Riots

In course of a conversation with a friend today, we meandered to the topic of our youth’s awareness and concern for events which impact us. While both of us were in agreement that this generation of high school – college going youth seem more concerned with good things in life, my friend opined that this indifference towards more profound events or history is actually good for the world. Logically, we fight only for what we hold dear. If we come to a state where we don’t care about issues which seem important to us now, there would be less and less to fight for. Truly speaking, I cannot find much fault in this logic. That said, it leaves me with a niggling feeling of discomfort. There would certainly be less to fight for – if people all around get indifferent almost at the same. However, if only one group adopts indifference as its mantra, doesn’t it leave the group vulnerable to attacks of more powerful ‘others’? Isn’t history, both distant and not so distant , replete with instances of a peaceful and prosperous but inward looking and decadent civilization falling prey to committed and organized hordes of barbarians? By this practiced indifference, are we coming to state where we would be similar to Delhi of 18^th century or Paris of early 20^th century?

A basis of my belief that this phenomenon of changing thought process of the youth of our country being restricted to the majority community alone is the changing pattern of communal riots in our country. A very welcome change which has happened over the last few decades is that the number of communal incidents in the country has come down. Yes, it has indeed come down irrespective of what the secular evangelists would like us to believe. Home ministry records are a testimonial to that. More than that, any observer of Indian modern history would know, triggering riots in India were amongst the easiest things to do. Particularly in the pre-partition India, the whole of North India was a communal tinderbox, with minor and major riots happening across cities and towns, over issues as minor as band playing before a mosque while a religious procession was on,  or to the much more serious issue of mass slaughter of cows. This tendency to riot continued well after India became independent, though with lesser vigour and started witnessing a drop 70’s onwards. Other than the changing mindset of Hindus in particular, in which religion was seen as archaic and a well of superstitions, the political support of religious identity witnessed a withdrawal. For one, late sixties onwards, the Bharatiya Jan Sangh, which used to be at the forefront of pro Hindu activities, got in multiple alliances with socialists of various hues, in effect diluting its ideology. Second, with Indira’s victory in 1971, the conservative wing of the Congress, or whatever had remained of it after Nehru’s continuous purges, was left without power; a forgotten bunch of people who had completely been sidelined due to people's fascination with Indira’s pro-poor image. Indira, completely the socialist messiah at that time, assiduously cultivated the minorities then and all these left little institutional support for those professing Hindu interests. Thirdly, with the decisive defeat of Pakistan in the 1971 war, Muslim separatism in India received a body blow and underlined that those dreaming of an Islamic sultanate in India would remain dreamers only. This in turn, tempered the ingrained bellicosity of Muslims in the country and resulted in lowering communal temperature in the country.  It is noteworthy  that there weren’t any major riots in the country in the decade of 1970s.

Compared to the era till the late 80s, the decade of 90s and beyond have seen a transformation of the profile of riot participants. While previously, the Jan Sangh would certainly be at the forefront of riots in pockets in North India, riots then were seen as one necessary for the defence of the community and its participants would consist of players cutting across the political spectrum. Even till the late 80’s, people from all parties, with a very big chunk contributed from Congress, would be among the accused in riots. Think of Bhagalpur riots, where almost all accused from the majority community were either from the Police force or affiliated to the Congress. Anyways, since the BJS’s electoral presence was relatively limited, crediting it with participation in all riots had would actually effect in paying unnecessary homage to its limited powers.

What changed in the 1990’s was the BJP’s hijackingof the Ram Janmabhoomi agitation and more importantly, the unfortunate siding of all Hindu organizations with the BJP. All of a sudden, most political parties were bereft of support of akharas, dharmacharyas  and groups of religious fervered activists, all of who had hitched themselves to the BJP bandwagon. The flip side of this phenomenon, combined with aggressive media evangelization and advent of Sonia Gandhi, has been that Hindu interests and concerns have become anathema to most parties, with the belief that any such articulation of support of Hindu causes would only benefit the BJP while further damaging their minority votebanks. That the BJP itself wants to dissociate itself with its past completely is another topic of discussion altogether. As far as riots are concerned, they have become a pure Sangh Parivar phenomenon, where almost all Hindu accused in communal riots are affiliated to the Sangh, with barely any 'representation' from other public bodies.

While the merits / demerits of the above mentioned changes can be debated, what has become more ominous is the fact that Islamic belligerence has been on the rise in all the riots which the country has witnessed in the 2000s. Other than Gujarat riots of 2002, the country has witnessed Hindu Muslim riots at Jalna (2009), Malegaon (2002), Dhule (2008), Sangli (2009), Miraj (2009), Burhanpur (2008), Hyderabad (2010), Marad (2003), Mau,(2005) Aligarh (2006) and Bareilly (2010), among numerous others. The good part is that none of these riots had a large number of human deaths. The sad part is that each of them entailed a huge loss of property and that each of them seems to have been instigated by the Muslim community. At Miraj – Sangli, the riots followed attacks on Ganapati pandals, ostensibly against some posters of the historical event of Afzal Khan murder by Shivaji. At Dhule, riots followed Muslims tearing down a Navratri pandal, ostensibly on account of their reluctance to walk underneath a saffron coloured gateway. Hyderabad riots happened after Muslims rioted against replacement of their banners which they had put more than a month back. Bareilley riots happened when Muslims violated orders and took out their procession through a sensitive locality and attacked houses while they were doing so. Marad massacre was a simple unprovoked attack on a group of Hindu Araya fishermen who were collecting their catch of the day, on Marad beach. Mau riots happened following unprovoked attacks on a Ramlila procession while Aligarh erupted in riots following Muslims removal of Ram Navami decorations from a temple. Malegaon riots happened after a mob protesting US invasion of Afghanistan decided to turn its ire against the hapless Hindus. Burhanpur riots happened after Muslims stoned a Hanuman Rath during the Hanuman Mela after Dushehra.

A few features, common across all these riots have been:

• All of them happened in towns / cities having a significant Muslim population
• All of them were invariably triggered by Muslims
• All of them were of a short duration, resulting in huge damage to property, but thankfully, relatively lesser damage to life
• Hindus suffered disproportionately as victims, both in numbers and in damage to property
• Few people were arrested, though the number of Muslims rioters would run in thousands
• Few of these riots evinced any interest in the media. Contrasting this with the 24 X 7 coverage of Muslim angst manifest in riots at Kolkata (2007) and Vadodara (2006), against Taslima Nasreen and illegal madarsa demolition, respectively

A renowned BJP watcher and a mainstream journalist now, had told me that following the Gujarat riots, Muslim belligerence has decreased. I guess that BJP wallahs are happy living this delusion. The fact of the matter is that riots have become more organized and more dangerous today. Senior personnel in home ministry accept that small modules of goons have spread up across India in a systematic fashion. These groups are highly motivated and trained to inflict maximum damage in the shortest time. Hence, in any riots, these bunches of goons can assemble at the nerve centre of riots at a short notice, create damage and melt away while the curfew is on. Then, the usual PUCL type ‘independent’ ‘citizens’ ‘fact-finding’ committees can come and proclaim that Muslim involvement in riots was restricted to their being victims or otherwise being a tool of ‘outsiders’ or that the poor unemployed Muslim youth are being unnecessarily terrorized by the Police.

It certainly does not seem that indifference is spreading among the Muslim youth too. Even today, most of the Muslim rioters are young and the very young. Their terrorists are not a bunch of uneducated or hungry lumpen elements but educated and coming from privileged backgrounds. It takes only a single determined man to change the destiny of a Nation. Think of Mohd Ali Jinnah, think of Gautam Buddha, Martin Luther King or our own Mahatma Gandhi. Here we are faced with a determined community riding the wave of its demographic strength, seeking to alter the Indian Civilization in their own way. At the same time, following Bareilley and Hyderabad riots, our Home Minister assures that the minority interests would be protected!!! Where does that leave a decent, law abiding citizen who simply wants to carry on with his life without interference from others? Where would this indifference to all what is happening take us? Can indifference ever be the solution to what lies ahead of us?

The concluding part to this post would touch upon the changing demographic profile of the country.

Freedom of Expression or Societal Peace???

Buried in inner pages of today’s Times of India was a small news item, captioned, 'SC upholds ban on book against Islam'. It stated that the Hon’ble court has upheld Maharashtra Government’s ban on R V Bhasin’s "A Concept of Political World Invasion by Muslims". The two judge bench comprising of Justice P Sathasivam and Justice H L Dattu held that Bhasin’s Right to Freedom of speech, as guaranteed under the Constitution of the country was secondary to the need of maintaining peace in society.

The author of the book, Mr Bhasin had challenged Maharasthra Government's 2007 decision to ban the book, four years after its publication, on the ground that it perpetrated hatred against Muslims, promoted enmity between communities and on the apprehension that it would breach harmony in society.

At the first glance, there does not seem anything objectionable in the judgment passed by the court, which by itself was a reaffirmation of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court order upholding the ban on the book. Since the constitution has explicitly affirmed restrictions on the Right to Freedom of Speech and the fact that even instinctively, we all know that rights are not absolute makes the judgment seem completely logical and in the larger interests of society.

However, a little analysis of the facts of the case and a comparison of this present instance with court judgments / Government actions in similar cases can leave a person much discomforted on the arbitrariness behind judicial pronouncements and the posturing of ‘civil society’. The most recent of these is MF Hussain’s renouncing of his Indian Citizenship and the Muslim riots in Shimoga, ostensibly against writings of Taslima Nasreen. In the case of Hussain, the Hon’ble court has already dismissed a couple of cases against him, citing artistic license and freedom of speech. His supporters disingenuously point out that most of his controversial creations were 20 years old and that it is indeed the Hindi (emphasis added) magazine Vichar Mimansa, which is guilty of insulting Hindu deities as it had reprinted those paintings. Notice the similarity with Bhasin’s case.


Unlike in case of books like Salman Rushdie’s ‘The Satanic Verses’ or Ram Swarup’s ‘Understanding Islam through the Hadis’, which were banned almost immediately after their publication, the Government took four years to realize that it could disturb peace in society! By that logic, opponents of Hussain’s work, have all the more valid ground to agitate against Hussain. But yet again, only a couple of years back, the Delhi Tis Hazari court dismissed a petition seeking a ban on Swami Dayanand Saraswati’s ‘Satyarth Prakash’ for its criticism of Islam. In that instance, the court held that a book published more than 135 years back cannot be taken to be a threat to peace now.

In the case of Taslima Nasreen, FIRs were lodged against the Kannada newspaper Kannada Prabha’s publisher, the translator and Taslima herself for bringing a religion in disrespect and wilfully disturbing societal peace. Taslima anyways is controversy’s child. So, even at the time when she was physically attacked by MIM goons (including 3 MLAs) in Hyderabad in August, 2007, an FIR was lodged against her! The victim of a murderous attack!!

Then there is the ban on James Laine's, S'hivaji, Hindu King in Islamic India.' The book supposedly questions the legitimacy of Shivaji’s paternity and led to an attack on Pune’s Bhandarkar Institute. The ban followed the attack and was defended by the Maharashtra Government right till the Supreme Court after the Bombay High Court dismissed the ban. The court judgment anyways became immaterial as the book was withdrawn from print in India altogether.

The only common theme which we can notice in all cases of bans are that such restrictions have been imposed only where there have been riots / demonstrations and / or damage to public property. Hence, protests against Hussain, which have been by and large peaceful and primarily restricted to legal and internet forum battles, have not seen any injunction against Hussain. At the same time, any book, cartoon or utterance, which can drive Muslims to paroxysms of rage, have been censored or banned. It is not the Islamists alone who are prone to get offended. The supposedly liberal Gandhian dispensation was apoplectic with the reception received by ‘Mee Nathuram Godse Boltoy’ and did not rest till the play was banned by the ‘Gandhi-murderer-organization (RSS) associate, the then Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee’.

However, the ban on Mee Nathuram…, should not blind us to the fact that in spite of their protests where any person questioning Gandhi is not deemed patriotic enough (recollect the avalanche of rage when KS Sudarshan of RSS declared Gandhi to be a noble soul, but not the Father of the Nation), criticism of Gandhi and Nehru are considered acceptable even in today’s dangerously divided India. In fact, that ban becomes all the more sad when we remember that Supreme Court had, in 1969, stuck down a ban on Gandhi-hatya Ani Mee (Gandhi-assassination and I), by Gopal Vinayak Godse, brother of Mahatma Gandhi’s assassin Nathuram Godse, even while accepting that the book did indeed glorify the murderers of Gandhi.

What is more worrisome is the growing tendency of the State to yield to hooliganism, particularly of the minority variety. It does not seem to take more than a few minutes for a couple of thousand of Muslims to assemble anywhere at anytime of the day and demonstrate against the numerous injustices being meted out on them. Only this demonstration is not peaceful and is always accompanies by riots, stoning, damage to public property and grievous injury (often fatal) to a few innocent bystanders. So, a caring Government and a judiciary, which wants to maintain public peace at all costs, is willing to abdicate its duty of being the enforcer of law, and succumbs to their demands. The same scenario being repeated, be it Mau, Azamgarh, Miraj, Burhanpur, Sangli, Murshidabad or Hyderabad. Lest it be assumed that this tendency is limited to Muslims alone, we must not ignore the fact that rising intolerance has become the mark of public discourse even in other communities. Remember the ban on the movie Da Vinci Code in Andhra Pradesh and some North Eastern states, when Indian States became probably the only governmental entities in the world to have banned the movie? That ban followed Government's fear that protests by hurt Christians could create a law and order problem. Punjab was rocked by violent protests against the attire of Dera Saccha Sauda's Ram Rahim for days altogether. Only last month, some alphabet book published in distant Mizoram became the crux of protest of Xtian hooligans in Punjab again, leading to arrest of the author and publisher of the book. No National newspaper has reported anything on the arrest of these hooligans who destroyed public property, so we can safely assume that none happened!

All along, we had been made to believe that while the lower courts judged on the facts of the case, the higher courts judged on provisions of the laws relating to the case. Sadly, that seems to be slowly getting diluted in cases where there seems to be a risk of violence by any affected party.  In this book's case, there weren't even any protests, merely the fear that there might be riots. I have not read the book and so don' t really know if it is actually offensive. Bhasin's book is supposedly based on analysis of Islamic scriptures. Logically, one would expect a scholarly rebuttal based on facts and not a blanket ban. I wonder if militant Hindutva votaries should take a leaf of their Islamic counterparts and be more aggressive and damaging in their protests. Should it start with Wendy Doniger's Hindus, An Alternative History?

Saving Ourselves

After many years and Crores of rupees spent on cleaning the Ganga, all to without any avail, we have yet another spectacle of the BJP Government in Uttarakhand launching a Save Ganga campaign. Quite a noble initiative, one would say. After all, aren’t rivers the life blood of our country? And doesn’t the Ganga occupy the highest pedestal of them all? Moreover, with environmental consciousness being the newest ‘cool’ fad amongst Indian elite, isn’t it time that we should all stop dumping plastic bags in the river and save it from drying up?

Of course, yes! Answers to each of these questions would be in the affirmative. Sadly, saving the river is much more that stopping sewage or dumping of sundry dead bodies. Coming from the BJP Government, which only a couple of days back has decided to oppose the Central GoM decision not to go ahead with construction of dams in the 155 kms stretch of Bhagirathi, this Save Ganga campaign seems to be as meaningful as Nitin Gadkari’s song at the BJP National Convention at Indore. As more and more hydrologists are now accepting, setting up of sewage treatment plants to save rivers are akin to administering distilled water before it is administered to a dead body; a dead body because a river without water is dead. Period.

Over the last century, we as a Nation has failed Nature which made the Indian Subcontinent among the most fertile, productive and populous regions of the world. Dams after dams on rivers crisscrossed with ill conceived canals have ensured that even the supposedly perennial rivers get reduced to a rivulet like trickle for most of the year. A dam building western model, simply duplicated without study of its applicability in the Indian context, has ensured that within a few years, dams get silted up, never achieve even half of their power generation or irrigation capacity and finally, fail to achieve its target of flood alleviation. Nothing can be more potent a symbol of this rot than the Hirakud on river Mahanadi. This dam was ostensibly constructed for protection of deltaic Orissa from floods. Now, the dam management has to flood Orissa to save the dam!

Coming back to the Ganga, the river as we know, is an amalgam of many streams and rivers, of which, some like the Yamuna are even mightier than the Ganga when it actually merges with the latter at Prayag. The primary stream, which flows from Gangotri and before it, from Gaumukh, is the Bhagirathi and it is the same Bhagirathi which carries the name of Ganga throughout its journey in the Indian heartland.  Most importantly, the BJP wallahs whose hearts seem to beat so strongly for the Ganga, want not 1 but 3 dams to come up over Bhagirathi, effectively killing the river and by extension Ganga. 

Unfortunately, killing the Ganga does not seem to be an obsession with the BJP alone. Since the times of British, when canals were built to divert water from the Ganga, more and more projects on the river have meant that there is lesser and lesser water in the river. A river, which sustained river trade, lakhs of fishermen and multiple civilizations has been left gasping for the element which makes it a river in the first place. What good would a save river campaign do when there would be no river to protect?

Unfortunately, like most other issues of public domain, environmental concerns in India have been hijacked by extremists, one of the breast beating variety, and the other and more dangerous ilk (for they are the power wielders), of everything-is-fine variety.

What is more confounding is that both these varieties come together when India is ‘pitted’ against the ‘imperial’ west, aka, India’s persistence with the per capita emission standards. While it can be argued that the Hagen summit was doomed to fail on account of the developed world’s intransigence on bearing the cost of cleaning up of their mess, more shameful has been India’s assertion of its right to pollute, based on the per-capita emission figures. Again, while India may not be found wanting in legal speak, the morality and truth behind such a position needs a definite enquiry. Rather than seeking refuge behind its destitute millions, India should pause and think of a developed country whose land, air and water is even half as poisoned as India or a country whose forests, rivers and mountains have faced so much denudation as ours. The fact remains that these destitute millions, who allow India to shamelessly ask for a Right to pollute are the ones who demand the least of Natural resources. I dare say that the carbon emission rates of our consuming classes would be at rates which would put even the much maligned Americans to shame.

More inexplicable is people’s reluctance to accept that the climate is changing. It doesn’t require one to be a greybeard today to proclaim that the summers are hotter, days hotter, nights warmer, and rains shorter than what they were even 10-15 years back. Flowers and fruits bloom out of season and what comes is always more severe than its predecessor. Our surroundings have changed. The common house sparrow has been replaced by the pigeon and mynah without even our realizing it. The weaver bird, the tailor bird, the parrot, the bulbul, the crane and the sarus seem headed only to our illustration books. Squirrel population has boomed and we have many more monkeys around. But what about other mammals? The udbilav, the mongoose or even the rabbit? We haven’t realised it probably but we have lost Spring. For a land which chronicled six seasons, we have been left with three, a very long summer, a short winter and a short season of rains. But who cares? Our culture, which was so intricately entwined with nature has moved on. For a people who worship trees, mountains, rivers, animals and birds, we seem to display little sensitivity even in instances where the land may be as sacred as Braj or the river as sacred as the Ganga.

Last year’s drought is still fresh in my memory. Indicators for this year have been far from cheerful with absolutely no rainfall in North India in either February or March. Even thinking of a consecutive year of drought sends shivers down my spines. In spite of myself, I cannot but go back to those hymns of the Rig Veda which talk of the 12 year drought, which caused erasure of all knowledge from Earth. We survived that period though at a great cost. Wonder if we have that much of time today?

Let us just remember that we will not be doing Gangaa favour by not throwing polybags in its waters.

Please bring Hussain back

It seems that the barefoot painter has been conferred Qatari citizenship which he has accepted. Reactions to this news have been almost predictable. Copious tears are being shed by his supporters who again proclaim that this is another proof of how the liberal space in India has shrunk. On the other hand, the ‘moving-to-center’ Sangh Parivar has actually said that it ‘welcomes’ Hussain as an Indian citizen.

Leaving aside polemics, firstly, taking up or not taking up an alternate citizenship is Hussain’s personal choice. So many people around the world give up their native citizenships and accept that of other countries; Hussain is just one among them. So, why this brouhaha over an individual act? Anyways, for people who are proud of Hussain, citizenship does not matter for they themselves are ‘citizens of the world’ (as if there existed such a thing). More importantly, as Indians, we have a habit of embracing as our very own, any celebrity around the world, who has had the remotest Indian connection, be it a VS Naipaul or a Bobby Jindal. Compared to them, Hussain is much more an Indian, having taken birth and lived much of his life in India. His citizenship is incidental then. Taking an alternate perspective, he has been away from the country for long, in effect, not having any material connection with India. So, if this de facto state is changed to a de jure state, then what exactly is the problem?

Coming to the more serious point which should merit our attention, i.e., muzzling of artistic freedom in India which led the country to ‘lose’ its ‘jewel’. Hussain has been accused of deliberately hurting religious sentiments of a vast segment of Hindus though his blasphemous depiction of Hindu Goddesses. As a result, by various estimates, more than 900 cases stand lodged against him in various courts across the country. For the record, Hussain has not attended a single court hearing and has, on the contrary, taken refuge from law, in the welcoming confines of a co-religionist Nation.

Why do a vast section of Hindus believe that Hussain has offended their religious sensibilities? It is because he has depicted Mother Goddess manifestations in vulgar and hitherto unknown scenarios. So, a painting titled ‘Sita’ has a naked female figure rubbing her clitoris on the tail of a monkey. Another painting titled ‘Durga’has another naked female figure copulating with a predatory cat. How exactly can these paintings solely be taken as secular expression of an artist’s instincts is beyond me. People who proclaim that these paintings are only a continuation of our Khajuraho traditions, are either ignorant of what those temple sculptures contain or are completely ignorant of Hindu (read Indian) traditions.

Firstly, Khajuraho and Konark are only exceptions among thousands of Indian temples. Secondly, by liberal estimates, around 10% of total sculptures belong to the genre of erotica, the rest being devoted to more mundane aspects of a householder’s life or depictions of tales of Gods and Goddesses. Thirdly and most importantly, those sculptures which provide gist to the ‘liberal’ arguments, depict courtesans, demi gods and celestial nymphs; all the categories of which, in Indic traditions, are supposed to be libertine. Nowhere would you find a heretical depiction of God or the Mother Divine even remotely in the way which Hussain has depicted. Fourthly and let it be as loud as the final trumpet…as per the liberals themselves, times have changed so we must look ahead and mould ourselves to changing times; a noble and acceptable sentiment indeed. However, applying the same principles, India is not India of 1200 years back and the benchmarks for acceptance have changed. Centuries of Islamic and Christian rule in India has imprinted in a more conservative form of sexual morality and imagery in the psyche of the people and for an overwhelming multitude of Indians, even fresh Khajuraho or Konark like sculptures or even paintings would be sacrilegious; forget about permitting truly blasphemous ‘artistic expressions’. It is quite a commentary on the intellectual (?) dishonesty of this bunch, that it needs to use some artefact from that time as a certificate to further its arguments, when it  does not have time for the Indian past other than proclaiming it only to be an age of oppression and darkness.

Another point of defence for Hussain is that he knows his Ramayana better than many Indians and his depiction of Hindu Goddesses depict his love for Hindu traditions. At the risk of sounding repetitive, why is that that Hussain’s depiction of his own mother, revered figures from Islamic faith or even Blessed Teresa of Kolkata, are always shown is composed and compassionate situations, always fully covered from head to toe? Why is that that his love manifests in different forms for different religions?

Coming to the protests, what exactly have been the mode of protests? The more serious one has been attack on an exhibition which displayed his paintings. No one attacked or even attempted to attack him physically, nor have there been any attempted or real damage to his personal property (in spite of the canard being spread by his supporters). What have the people hurt by his paintings done? They have simply taken the route of decent law abiding citizens and lodged cases in courts, painfully aware that the Indian judicial system will not let them have justice. The way cases progress, it is very likely that Hussain will pass away before any of these courts bring him to justice.

What has been Hussain’s response? He left India for the cosy confines of another land. Till last year, he and his son would refute that he is in exile, pointing out that Hussain has been living in Dubai and London for years, only occasionally visiting India. However, why let go of any opportunity to demean Hindus who still hold on to their faith? So, his holiday sojourns have become forced exile.

Normally, people who leave their countries to escape the law are known as fugitives and it is any Government’s moral duty to ensure their extradition. Here we have a fugitive from law, who is being supported and feted by ‘liberals’ of all hues and the Government saying that it will provide protection to him. Protect him by all means. He should live and no harm should befall him, lest it gives more imaginary fodder to his supporters.

Certainly should a PIL be filed asking for his return to India. However, unlike Bhim Singh’s PIL asking for his feted return, a more apt one should be for a direction that he be brought back so that the court cases against him be expedited.

My Name is Khan

Now that the storm has passed and My Name is Khan (MNIK)’s collections have fallen very significantly, it will do good for us all to analyse the issue once again.

Getting the facts first:

• Shahrukh Khan, the co-owner of Kolkata Knight Riders lamented the absence of Pakistani cricket players from any of the IPL teams
• He further stated that Pakistan is a good, nay, a Great Neighbor to have. He was then honest enough to accept that his family comes from Pakistan and he still has his ties there
• Shiv Sena proclaimed these enunciations to be heresy and decided that MNIK would not be allowed to be screened in Mumbai and Rest of Maharashtra
• The State Government made massive security arrangements, rounding off more than 1,500 Shiv Sainiks and deployed around 23,000 securitymen to guard cinema halls
• The State Government withdrew security cover of some Sena MLAs and threatened withdrawal of the cover provided to the Sena President, Uddhav Thackeray
• Most cinema halls in Mumbai reported almost complete occupancy the weekend the movie was released
• Shiv Sena washed its hands off the matter berating the public for not being patriotic enough for watching the movie of a ‘traitor’ in droves
• The intelligentsia hailed the house full boards as Mumbai’s knockout reply to Sena
• The State Government was hailed for superb handling of the ‘bully’
• Reports suggest that the occupancy rates of the movie hover in the range of 30% now
• New reports suggest that all through the shenanigans, Shahrukh Khan and Karan Johar had maintained discreet contacts with Matoshree
• As per other reports, the movie is a colossal hit in Pakistan and Shahrukh’s stock has further risen in that country

Rather than going into conspiracy theories or speculating that the entire tamasha was an affair stage managed by the principal actors for their own gains, let us focus on the larger issue of an Individual’s Freedom to Speech and the State’s duty to protect it.

Here, we have the scenario of one of the leading lights of Hindi moviedom proclaiming his love for a State which has only given pains to India right from the time it was conceived in the minds of Rahmat Alis and Saiyyad Ahmad Khans of yore. This celebrity, who happens to be the co-owner of an IPL team himself, did not pick up any player from his beloved neighbor but lamented the collective action of all of the teams the next day. The movie in question is a bleeding heart testimonial to the goodness of the second largest religion of the world and discovers superhuman qualities in the hearts of a true believer. Well Well… to each man his own. As Indians, we are very accommodative to all who love our enemies. After all, our Communists did not become person-non-grata to our population inspite of their open and aggressive support of China during the Indo China war of 1962. Earlier still, Babasaheb’s Ambedkar support to the British Raj and his strong opposition to the freedom movement did not make him a traitor to the country. Then, we certainly should not grudge Shahrukh his sympathy to the Pakistanis or should we?
 

The problem here is not Shahrukh but hypocrisy of the intelligentsia. Shahrukh was simply speaking with a forked tongue when he expressed his anguish over non inclusion of Pak players in the IPL. Being the owner of a team, he could have very well recruited 4 people for his own team. Having not done that, he probably wanted to mollycoddle his Pakistani audience and hence the crocodile tears. However, Shahrukh, as an Indian citizen, was merely using the freedom provided by our Constitution in speaking his mind. Only, why should the intelligentsia troop to support a man who is only out to promote his business is beyond me. I wonder where exactly was this intelligentsia hiding when Kamal Rashid Khan’s movie ‘Deshbhakt’ on attack on North Indians in Mumbai was banned by the same State Government’s police to prevent ‘inflaming of passions’. Arguably, that movie was much more pertinent and just compared to some bleeding heart testimony to terrorists. Why was there no squeak of support for that movie, however badly made, on grounds of freedom of expression? Here, the State abdicated all its other responsibilities to ensure that a movie is screened when it was clearly a potential riot issue (as if that was the biggest issue in Maharashtra) and there, the state decided that another movie could be a law and order issue! Perhaps the other Khan lost out for he did not count the State’s high and mighty amongst his friends!

Coming to the more important issue of the need to separate art from politics or sports from politics, as our omniscient conscience keepers advised us…excuse me.. when exactly were arts or sports away from politics? Be it Sean Penn using the Oscar’s platform to make speeches for Gay rights or Arundhati Roy using her pen to peddle her thoughts, Celebrities have all along used and abused their status to push the political agenda they identify with. Closer home, Shabana Azmi and Mahesh Bhatt are now known more for their politics than for their art. And if Shahrukh was so keen to protect his movie from Sena’s backlash, why did he need to open his moth on issues which do not concern him. Be it defending Shoaib Malik’s apologies to Muslims worldwide after Pakistan’s defeat in the T20 World Cup Finals or his wearing his Islamic identity on his sleeve, Shahrukh has made it a point to be in the limelight as much as possible.  If anyone fights for a cause, one cannot logically be away from its repercussions. Boycott of celebrities and products which they promote is a part of the game. Who can forget the way Anita Bryant’s sensational singing career went into a tailspin ultimately leading to her bankruptcy, in face of resolute campaign by gay rights groups. Anita’s fault was merely having taken the lead in organizing the ‘Save our Families’ campaign in opposition to militant gay rights activism.

Coming to Sports, India was on the forefront of boycott of South Africa for its apartheid policies refusing to play the Nation for atrocities it was committing on its own people, i.e., actually meddling in some other sovereign country’s affairs. The same cheerleaders of that boycott want India to constantly engage with a country which has killed and maimed thousands of our countrymen!!! And if sports is indeed separate from politics, why is it that sportspersons are considered ambassadors of a Nation or why is that National sentiments over-ride sporting mores when teams don National colors on the field? Why is it that sportspersons wear black bands while playing or the triumphs of Jesse Owens and Muhammad Alis of the world were seen as potent political statements? Or, why are sportspersons pulled to make statements in political campaigns?

What is particularly galling is the tendency of Shahrukh to proclaim from rooftops that his father was a freedom fighter and so he cannot be a traitor. Who exactly is his father and why is it that that inspite of his protestations, we are yet to know anything about him? It does not take much for anyone to proclaim anything. There were a lot of instances where people jailed for petty crimes during the British Raj’s fag end claimed to be in jail for fighting for India’s freedom. For all we know, if the Senior Khan did go to jail ever for something remotely related to Nation building, it could be very well as a Muslim League member, demonstrating in support of Pakistan. We don’t count Mohammad Ali Jinnah or Liaquat Ali Khan as India’s freedom fighter, do we? Finally, one’s lineage alone does not determine the course of life for others. Quite a few of the ULFA terrorists have come from exalted families of freedom fighters. That did not or has not prevented them from running a war against the Indian Nation. This is not to insinuate that Shahrukh has the welfare of any other Nation at the cost of the Indian Nation in mind, but the logic presented by him can be as illogical as possible.

While violence and force cannot be condoned, boycott is a very legitimate form of protest, be it against publicity seekers or those who actually stand for a cause. It is a shame that our intelligentsia have been unable to find more reasonable causes to defend.

Conspiracy behind the Ram Janmabhoomi Movement

A lot of newsprint and airtime has been wasted on the voluminous report presented by Justice (Retd.) MS Liberhan. Frankly, the report was too big and uninteresting for me to go in full. Hence, I will be restricting myself mostly to the angle of conspiracy, seemingly established by the Report.

Conclusions of Liberhan’s research as enunciated in Chapter 14 of the voluminous report can be summarized in the following points:

- Demolition of the Babri Masjid was not an unintended spontaneous event except for ‘self serving hyperbole’

- Logistically, given the total preparedness of the Kar Sevaks, there was a well planned conspiracy to destroy the Masjid

- Financial support came from Sangh Parivar funds including Bank Accounts operated by various named persons

- The then Chief Minister Kalyan Singh and his hand picked bureaucrats were involved in the conspiracy to destroy the Masjid and allowed a ‘parallel government’ and ‘cartel’ to facilitate the campaign which infiltrated the Government

- The State of UP had become a willing ally and co-conspirator in the joint common enterprise…(of)…demolishing the structure

- The conspiracy arose from the single minded efforts of the RSS and VHP ideologues and theologians to manipulate ordinary people into a frenzied mob

- The campaign had nothing to do with a popular mandate from the people who were manipulated to support it

- The police fell in line with the conspiracy

- The Union Government was crippled by the failure of intelligence and the ‘all-is-well reports by its rapporteur Tej Shankar

- Not a single video camera was put in place

- The media and journalists were subjected to systematic harassment

- Leaders like Vajpayee, Advani, Joshi and Govindacharya knew of the designs of the Sangh Parivar and lent their support in various ways.

- Muslim leaders ‘wittingly or unwittingly; did not counter the plans of the RSS and VHP, effectively to make the latter’s task easier

- 68 persons are found ‘culpable’, including Advani, Vajpayee and Joshi, but not Narasimha Rao

While there may be a lot of hair splitting on the inefficacy and uselessness of the report, a few points are beyond contention, i.e., the Sangh Parivar nurtured and promoted the movement for the liberation of the disputed shrine, that for the common man, construction of the magnificent temple was possible only after removal of the existing disputed structure and LK Advani, being the foremost leader of the Ayodhya movement, bears the primary responsibility for the demolition of the disputed structure.

However, these conclusions by themselves are not sufficient to accept that there was a deep rooted conspiracy to demolish the mosque the same day. While the usual suspects may point to the systematic demolition of the structure on that fateful day, we must not mistake trees for the woods and recognize the fact that the of the estimated five lakh people assembled at Ayodhya, at least a few thousands participated in the demolition. The Kar Sevaks were not a bunch of lumpen and unemployed youth alone but comprised a mix of professionals, salaried class, traders, women and even children. For any observer of mob mentality, it is common knowledge that mobs create their own leaders and are capable of achieving quite a lot in a short span of time, particularly if that task does not involve any constructive activity. Refer to the brick by brick demolition of the house of one of the Srinagar sex scandal accused, wherein a mob, after completing their Friday namaaz, simply went over and destroyed everything in less than an hour. Or, more recently, when the city of Kolkata came to a halt following a spontaneous rally of more than a lakh individuals, protesting state atrocities at Nandigram. When even organized political parties find it difficult to rustle up crowds of more than 10,000 strong these days, one would think that the possibility of one hundred thousand people assembling at a short notice can only be a result of a long drawn sustained campaign. But then, masses never fail to amaze. And when we talk of Ayodhya, we are talking of not a disparate mob, assembled together for divergent purposes. We are talking of a group, all individuals of which had a single agenda, i.e., the removal of the structure and construction of a temple at that site. After all, isn’t it plain common sense that if people were leaving their homes and families behind, unsure if they would ever come back and proceed to Ayodhya to work for the construction of a temple, they would have decided to first remove whatever was there standing on ground? Demolition of the structure was only a logical culmination of the urges driving those pilgrims on a destructive / constructive mission.

I dare say that the political leadership of the Sangh Parivar was never interested in constructing the temple and never wanted the destruction to happen at all. This contention is well based on a few observations of the reaction of the top leadership post demolition. The reported first comments of Rajju Bhaiyya, the then Sarsanghchalak of the RSS, when he heard of the demolition were “Ab to Sarkar Gayi”. Journalists who were present at the site on that fateful day have unanimously reported that LK Advani was visibly distraught at the spectacle and that a lot of leaders from the RSS and VHP appealed to the masses to desist from demolishing the disputed structure. While the conspiracy theorists may paint an Oscar worthy acting talent in Mr Advani, such suppositions are too fanciful to merit serious attention. Then, we must not ignore the fact that the assembled Kar Sevaks first went about in the demolition task, totally unconcerned about the idol of Ramlalla which was still inside the structure. Only a non directed mob would have had capacity of committing such a sacrilegious act. It was only moments before the final crumbling of the structure that the idol and its belongings were brought out safe in a steel trunk. A systematic conspiratorial effort certainly would have ensured removal of the deity before the first brick was touched.

Lest it be forgotten in the cacophony of allegations, spare a thought to the belief that Kar Seva had become a mere ritual for the BJP. The first instance, i.e., November 2, 1990 saw scores die in police firing while the one in June 1992 was a simple bhajan affair. While the BJP leadership might have seen the structure as a Golden egg laying goose, the average Hindu on street and in kitchens, was fast losing patience with the leaders of the movement.. December 6 was the day when the leadership of the movement passed on from its leaders to the led and the pilgrims achieved, albeit partially, what they had set out to achieve.

Had the BJP really been interested in constructing the temple, it could have easily erected the small scale version of the grand temple the offer for which had been made by the erstwhile King of Ayodhya (A small but functional model of the temple had been prepared and was capable of getting fabricated at a short time). The armed forces cleared the site of Kar Sevaks only about noon on December 7, 1992; ample time for the fabrication work to have happened. Probably the five century long struggle for resurrection of a Grand Temple devoted to Lord Ram was not destined to close in 1992. But maybe, some day, this centuries-long desire will indeed be fulfilled.

Regarding the report, it is a shameful travesty of all norms of investigation. What Mr Liberhan has produced after 17 years of ‘investigation’ could have been produced the next day. The entire report is full of assumptions, homilies and prescriptions and reads like an editorial of a pompous journalist. However, in spite of missing out the name of Rajiv Gandhi and Karan Singh among the list of 68, he has refreshed public memory that the Temple Movement was a epoch which cut across the political spectrum. By reminding people that it was Dau Dayal Khanna, who first raised the demand for restoration of the site to the Hindus, that Gulzari Lal Nanda was part of the troika which formulated the strategy of fermenting the temple movement, that Karan Singh’s well attended ‘Viraat Hindu Sammelans’ prepared the ground for receptivity to this movement, that Deoraha Baba was among the prime instigators of public opinion, we re-realise that the sentiments to liberate the shrine were not limited to Hindus of the saffron variety alone but ran across people of all political hues. It was the unfortunate hijacking of the movement by the expedient BJP which ruined it, leaving us with only a makeshift temple instead of a concrete structure to worship in. The Hindutva minded groups should perennially be grateful to Rajiv Gandhi for having allowed darshan at the site, something which a BJP led Government would never have done. By bringing to light the galaxy of leaders behind the movement, Liberhan nails one of his own lies, that the movement did not enjoy popular support. Such supposition is laughable and would make one believe that the ‘investigator’ was deep in a Rip Van Winkle sleep when the large parts of the country pulsated with emotions and cries of ‘Mandir Wahin Banayenge’ reverberated across the Nation. While it is true that people’s emotions were exploited, tell me, which mass movement is rational and devoid of emotions? Even with regards to our century long freedom movement, it was more of the imagery of Bharat Mata in chains and the tales of sacrifices of leaders of that era which fired public imagination. Can any sane person really claim that it was Dadabhai Naoroji’s ‘The Economic Drain and Un-British Rule in India’ fired the mass imagination more than Bankim Chandra’s ‘Vande Ma Taram’? To imagine that any movement can be sustained on basis of logic alone is idealistic. Any movement requires leaders and these leaders have to play on emotions of the people. Ayodhya movement was nowhere different from mass movements across the world.

One aspect which I would certainly agree with is that Babri Masjid symbolized Indian Secularism. In fact, I would go a step ahead and say that, that structure symbolized everything which is wrong with the way India practices secularism. Here we had a structure built on a shrine, which till some time back, was universally acknowledged as the site of a temple dedicated to Lord Ram. This was the site for which a mass movement was carried on, with a demand that the mosque be ‘shifted’ elsewhere. Note that there was no demand of demolition, it was only shifting. Huge piles of evidence in support of the existence of temple were produced by the parties demanding construction of the temple. On the other hand, we had a group which insisted on continuation of the mosque there, oblivious to the sentiments of the agitating Hindus. Rather than the debate being focused on the existence of the temple, all sorts of elements ganged together to question the historicity of Lord Ram himself, as if this was the question at any point of time! Finally, these people wanted the Government to massacre the Kar Sevaks, so that the disputed structure, which for all practical purposes, was a temple, could be saved! We heard many from this group sermonizing the Hindus that a hospital should come up, a urinal should come up, or any damned structure could come up, only it should not be a temple. I do not recollect any of them ever appealing to the Muslims to voluntarily hand over the site to the Hindus in interest of peace and harmony!

Anyone can imagine what consequences such an act would have caused. Not only would have the mosque been saved, it would have destroyed public support for all other liberation movements. Public support cannot be rallied again and again and the tolerant Hindu would never have accorded support to another movement which would have created disharmony in the society. Further, which sites would they have targeted? With Kashi and Mathura, while the evidence of Muslim desecration and destruction are too vivid to be ignored even by the ‘secular’ historians, those shrines have fully functional temples. The business minded Hindu would never have rallied to ‘liberate’ these shrines fully. With regards to smaller shrines like the Saraswati Mandir at Dhar or the Datta Peeth at Baba Budangiri Hills, the former was anyways sorted out by courts and the latter is a dispute which rose primarily on account of unilateral action of Waqf Board. Moreover, it is not a Mosque, only a dargah for the believer, worshipping which itself is kufr for the puritan. Anyways, had the Muslims had shown their ‘generosity’ in Ayodhya, I doubt if anyone would have managed public support for more ‘liberations’ elsewhere. However, since the mosque was a symbol of Indian Secularism, such thoughts themselves were heresy. And so we are at a juncture where we have been left with an unfinished structure an unfinished agenda and a cynical mass which has lost hope of seeing the Grand Temple coming up in their lifetimes.

Welcome Ms Sushma Swaraj

Finally, the supposed generational shift in the BJP has happened with the ascent of Ms Sushma Swaraj as the Leader of the Opposition and Mr Nitin Gadkari as the President of the Bharatiya Janata Party. What is quite interesting that all those critics, who had been crying themselves hoarse over Mr Gadkari’s elevation as the Party President on account of RSS's intervention are pretty much silent about the rise of Ms Swaraj. Probably they would rather believe that the RSS has had no hand to play in this elevation or that Ms Swaraj reached where she has reached inspite of RSS’s opposition to her. Let us have a look, both at the noise and the silence.

First, Mr Gadkari’s elevation. The critics, who have never voted for the BJP and would like nothing better than seeing the party buried for eternity, seem to have wanted someone from ‘Dilli 4’ to become the BJP President. But were any of them really good choices? Mr Venkiah Naidu’s stint is remembered for little else but his tendency for alliteration. He proved such a failure that he had to step down, ostensibly on account of his wife’s illness! And what about the support base he possesses? He has lost practically all  popular elections he ever fought. Coastal Andhra, the region to which he belongs is nowhere close to being a BJP stronghold. Then, why him? Regarding Mr Ananth Kumar, he is supposed to be a good administrator and does have a mass base, but more importantly, he has always been a factional leader in Karnataka. Is he the panacea that a faction ridden BJP needs now? Certainly not! Regarding the darling of the Delhi media, the talented Mr Jaitley, well, life is long and he will have his chances. But how could the BJP elevate a person who is prone to off-the-records briefings to belittle his colleagues? That leaves Ms Sushma Swaraj. 

While eminently qualified to be the President of BJP, she has received a bigger reward. Historically, the BJP’s Leader of the Opposition is the Prime Minister candidate. Till 1984, the leader of the BJP Parliamentary party used to be Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee and till 1984 elections, it was he, who would be projected as the BJP Prime Ministerial candidate. Surprising, yes…but then the slogan, 'Ab ki bari, Atal Behari', was not coined in 1996 or 1998 but is as old as…probably Vajpayee himself. In 1991, LK Advani was the leader of the BJP Parliamentary party and by virtue of him riding the Ram wave, it was assumed that he would become the Prime Minister in case the BJP came to power. Post elections, he rose to occupy the chair of Leader of the Opposition and was seen as BJP’s shadow Prime Minister till 1995, when he graciously declared Mr Vajpayee to be the BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate. At this time, Mr Advani resigned from the post of the Leader of the Opposition and Mr Vajpayee adorned that seat. Likewise, post the 1996 13 day Government, Mr Vajpayee continued to be the Prime Ministerial candidate and became the Leader of the Opposition. 2004 onwards, when Mr Vajpayee retired from active politics, Mr Advani became the Leader of the Opposition and de facto and later de jure Prime Ministerial candidate of the BJP. Hence, we can safely assume that as things stand, Ms Swaraj is the Prime Ministerial candidate of the BJP. This, is certainly something which is higher than being the BJP's President!

At the same time Mr Gadkari, certainly cannot  be said to be the best choice for the post. After all, he was also seen as a factional leader in Maharashtra and has not exactly worked wonders for the BJP in that state.  The fiasco of Chimur where he fought the Sena rather than the Congress and ended up with egg on his face is yet to recede from public memory. Probably someone like a Manohar Parrikar would have been a better bet as compared to him. That said, we must not forget that Mr Rajnath Singh had become the President with a lot of promise. He was seen as a decisive man, an RSS favorite, one who did his best to salvage the BJP in Uttar Pradesh. He started off with making all the right sort of noise... on getting the prodigals back, on going back to basics, so on and so forth. Sadly, he was let down by his teammates, who never let go of a chance to underline that he did not belong to Delhi or that he was intellectually challenged. I very vividly recollect a renowned BJP watcher, with sufficient access  to the inner circle of 'Dilli 4' telling me that Mr Singh was unfit to be a primary school teacher! I could only nod my head wondering which school teachers in India had become the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Cabinet Ministers or the Head of a National Political Party.  IThe BJP's President can only be as good as his esteemed colleagues would allow him to be. Probably the test of the leader will be more on how he manages them, rather than the party!

Now, to conclude that the RSS will be happy to have a person, who it does not believe in (or oppose), as the BJP’s Prime Ministerial Candidate, is to do disservice to both the BJP and the RSS. Even Mr Vajpayee’s declaration as the BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate in 1995, was a result of RSS deliberations. Further, while it cannot be denied that there are tones of disharmony in the relationship between the RSS and the BJP, the latter has had its roots of the former and still gains umbilical sustenance from it. While it may warm the cockles of secularists wishing for a parting of ways between the two entities, such thinking is entirely wishful, particularly when you realize that there is little to distinguish between each other, at the core level. One may do good to remember the lament of Mahatma Gandhi, pre and post partition, when he said that while everyone professes to respect him, no one listens to him. While this was certainly far from reality, what this and the accounts of that period do reinforce that there was indeed some tension between Gandhi and his followers, the latter finding Gandhi too idealistic for their comfort! It however, by no stretch of imagination means that there was a stage for parting of ways! Same will be true for the BJP and the RSS, at least in the coming years.

What some critics would like to forget now is the Ms Swaraj was seen as an RSS favorite till some time back. And why not? This lady started her political career in the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, is attractive in her own way, is an excellent orator, a walking epitome of Indian culture, is an efficient administrator and is as yet, untouched by taint of corruption. Few, who have seen Ms Swaraj perform in debates would have any doubt that she is among the most articulate speakers in Indian political firmament today. For those, who would want to dismiss this as of little consequence, should remember that Mr Vajpayee made his mark first as an orator only. I have had a chance to hear Ms Swaraj in a public rally. This was when she came to my hometown along with Mr LK Advani, on the Su Raj Yatra. No disrespect to Mr Advani, but Ms Swaraj spoke first and was mesmerizing. When Mr Advani started, the crowd started moving away and mid way through his speech, half the crowd was already gone.

In addition to being an orator, Ms Swaraj is a feisty lady, always up for challenge. After all, how many would have decided to confront Ms Sonia Gandhi on a Congress bastion, in an alien state? Or how many would have given up the comforts and certainty of the Central Council of Ministers to accept Chief Ministership of Delhi, all while knowing that a defeat is certain and would mean being away from position of power for long. Finally, she was a part of the Ayodhya campaign and unlike others, she has never beaten round the bush with regards to BJP’s association with the movement.

It is not to say that Ms Swaraj has not had her share of failures. Just after 2004 elections, when Veer Savarkar’s plaque was removed from the Martyr’s memorial at Andamans, Ms Swaraj led a delegation of NDA MPs on a Satyagraha against that move. Unfortunately, that did not make a mark. Likewise, she became the campaign champion of Mr Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, during the run up to President of India polls. While she had a lot of positive statements and hopes to offer, in the final reckoning, Mr Shekhawat scored less than promised votes!

That said, there can hardly be a candidate better than Ms Swaraj to lead the BJP. If nothing else, the simple fact that quite a large section of the media pejoratively describes her image of a middle class Indian women, stands ample testimony to the fact that they are scared, scared that the down to earth and common-sensical appeal of Ms Swaraj could be too hard to ignore for a significant section of the Indian population. While many of these critics would like that the entire country go ga-ga over Priyanka Gandhi’s natty dress sense, there exists more shades of India than one. Welcome Ms Swaraj. I have always believed you to be a future Prime Minister of this country and am sure that you will adorn that office one fine day.