Shrinking space for Debate

It has been generally believed that in any public discussions over issues with socio-political implications; reason, facts & logic lie with the progressives while the conservatives rely more on social norms, emotions and demagoguery. This truism may have been valid, more so in the changing order of the last century when entrenched beliefs in India got challenged in view of newer emerging social awareness, much of it influenced by exposure to the Western Civilization.

In fact, social change was not the preserve of the progressives alone, Hindu traditionalists, Nationalists and Socialists, all strived to mould social beliefs to their own ideologies. So, we had Savarkar’s masterly disposition on Hindutva sharing honors with MN Ray’s radical humanism and Nehru’s socialism, all making forceful arguments highlighting the strength of their own ideological thoughts. A perusal of papers on the working of the Indian Constituent Assembly (1946-1950), will convince anyone that this assembly of august men drawn from all shades of political opinions and social classes, was a debater’s delight. Oratorical skills, combined with deft usage of facts and logic by rationalists, socialists, Nationalists, traditionalists and other representatives of various interest groups made adoption of any single provision of the constitution, a herculean task. This state of affairs continued and even a seemingly religious activity like the restoration of Somnath temple was carried on following reasoned campaign carried out by KM Munshi. However, this was not to continue for very long and the Governmental efforts to codify the Hindu Personal Law bought about the first schism in between passion and logic of the traditionalists. While the Nehru Government had to bow down to this strong opposition, both within and outside the Congress (leading to Ambedkar’s exit from the Government), its failure to carry the reform then was more on account of the impassioned pleas on defending the Indian (Hindu) way of life, than any other reason. However, Nehru managed to get Ambedkar’s baby adapted in three parts over the years as he systematically cleansed Congress of all opposition. Working in his favor was the impression created that the conservatives did not have any sound argument to support their contention and this perception might have played a role in the Hindu middle class not integrating completely with the Cow Protection Movement led by Sant Karpatri and Jana Sangh. (Incidentally this agitation died out after police firing killed scores of sadhus marching to gherao the Parliament).

As the Leftist hold over Indian academia strengthened with the rise of Ms Indira Gandhi, the space for the right decreased all the more. So, while the Swaraj Party and the Congress (O) may have had all the logic behind them when they espoused their policies, the prevailing public discourse made them appear ‘reactionary’ and feudal, bent on sustaining an old, exploitative order. The dice shifted slightly towards the right with the rise of militant Hindutva, espousing the cause of the Ram Janmabhoomi agitation. Articulate speakers like Govindacharya, Pramod Mahajan, Sushma Swaraj, Rajnath Singh, Narendra Modi and others provided perfect logical foil to the demagoguery of Ashok Singhal and Acharya Giriraj Kishore and suddenly, the Hindu Right did not seem so stupid after all!

However, good times did not last long and an apologetic BJP started looking lost for facts post the structure demolition in 1992. Still, a general population fed up with the Rao Government’s corruption and Devegowda-Gujral shenanigans, reposed faith in the BJP and most media houses, while not supportive of the BJP, would openly criticize the said Governments of those days. The watershed movement in public debate has, of course, been the Gujarat riots of 2002. While the killings of innocents cannot be justified, the event resulted in battlelines getting drawn up sharply in between the Right and the Left. Slowly, shrillness and demagoguery seems to have been adopted by the progressives as its very own. Hence, other than Goebbelsian propaganda, we have been exposed to funny conclusions. Example – Praful Bidwai on how the NDA Government’s Highway building project was similar to Nazi autobahns and a proof of their fascist ideology. Sadly, with the Indian Middle Class less and less interested in public discourse, we have the powerful media deciding what we think. Debate has anyways been a diminishing phenomenon in the Parliament with bills getting passed sans discussion. Now, even public debate has been reduced to the charade of a few usual suspects haranguing in Television Studios, with the fiercely ideological ‘moderators’ pretending to play referee.

A favored approach adopted by today’s progressives is to make any random assertion, add a dash of some lofty statement, deflect any factual argument by moving on to the next topic without repudiating, declaring the opponents as fanatical and then, when cornered, grandstand and close the argument with another lofty rendering of the UN Charter for Universal Human Rights! While such tactics have been the hallmark of JNU variety historians for long, the trend seems to have caught up and has been adapted with open arms by people of all hues, be it Manish Tiwari of the Congress, Teesta Setalvad of the Gujarat riots industry, Ram Punyani of the Hindu terror, DN Jha of the Aryan beef eaters or Arundhati Roy of all things.

I have squared off on various topics with many, both the ‘eminent’ and the ‘common’ and have first-hand experience on the tactics adapted by these sections of the Civil Society. However, till a couple of days back, such discussions were either face to face, in a forum, on emails or as a part of an E Group, where keeping a track of all arguments is not very easy. Hence, the exchange prompted by my response to MK Dhar’s (Ex Joint Director, IB) comments on the Facebook status message of Kiran Trivedi (neo Gandhian and professional activist from the Gujarat riots industry), was a learning for me, on the ways and arguments adopted by these sections of Civil Society.

Mr Trivedi’s message equated the flood relief organized by Pakistani terror groups to relief activities organized by the RSS and VHP and claimed that both only wanted new recruits out of such activities. While some people supported this comment, others protested, pointing out the fallacy of this argument and I had to say that by this convoluted logic, organizations like the Red Cross and Lion’s Club too, could be equated to the terror Groups. Then came the usual lie, Amit Shah (small time theatre artist) claimed that the RSS killed Gandhi. On Mr Dhar’s nailing the lie, Sukumar Trivedi (journalist) loftily brushed it aside saying that the fact whether or not RSS was the killer is a matter of ‘profound indifference’ and went on to pass more of unfounded statements. In the meanwhile, Kiran Trivedi managed to sound almost persecuted, pointing to the potential of damage the protestors can cause to his person! Anyways, there was an exchange of comments and none of the counter arguments presented by Trivedi et al, addressed the points raised by us. Finally, curtains were sought to be bought down by S Trivedi, posting some lines on humanism and Kiran pretending that the entire exchange never happened!

It will be easy to dismiss this exchange of being no consequence, having been carried among people who, frankly carrying no importance in the larger scheme of things (yours truly included). However, what it does prove is that facts and logic have become perfectly expendable commodities in public discourse and to be ‘liberal-progressive’ is deemed qualification enough to pontificate on any topic under the sun, all the while haughtily dismissing facts and alternate opinions as fanatical. To adapt a phrase from Mr Pratap Bhanu Mehta, “these ‘activists’ think their own good intentions are a substitute for analytical thoughts,”

It is a scary thought that shrill voices emerging out of the 24 X 7 media could numb the senses of well meaning people. Probably, George Orwell was not being alarmist when he wrote of ‘Newspeak’ and indifference of the proles, in 1984.

Those interested can access the documented exchange Here

When ignorance passes for assertions - Uninformed Support for the Mosque at Ground Zero

This post has been prompted by the celebration of a piece on American tolerance by an Indian American published here. Reading that piece makes one realise that not only is the columnist horrendously uninformed, such pieces somehow manage to strike a chord with probably well meaning, but yet again, the informed, and become a part of the mainstream discourse.

This article by Shikha Dalmia claims to analyse the ongoing debate on the proposed mosque on Ground Zero, in New York and comes up with two conclusions; one, that the American is a very tolerant creature, when it comes to religious freedom and the other, that the mosque is very much desirable at that spot.

Though I don’t have any particular view on whether Americans should or should not have the mosque (it is their choice, after all), I do have issues with the fanciful assertions and conclusions which Shikha has managed to draw out of thin air.

Firstly, taking the case of American tolerance, no doubt that it is a tolerant country. However, at the same time, the US President has to proclaim many a times that he belongs to the Christian faith. It is a country where the religious belief of the lawmakers plays an extremely important role in deciding whether they will or they will not be elected as lawmakers. Other than Obama, recall the public proclamation of faith which the much hyped Bobby Jindal and Nikki Randhawa Haley had to make. Any whiff of their being a Hindu or a Sikh and presto, the chance of election would be out of the window. Forget about religion, the USA is so hung up on being a Nation founded on Protestant values that Kennedy’s election was in jeopardy on account of his Catholic beliefs. Yet again, policy decisions in the USA are still very much dictated by religion. Opposition to abortion, gay rights, stem cell research and countless other issues are not based on morality or logic! It is simply religion all the way. Compare that to India. Has ever Indian Prime Minister publicly proclaimed his/her faith? We don’t know anything about the religious beliefs of Late Rajiv Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi and her two children and frankly, do we care? We’ve had two Christian Chief Ministers in Andhra, many Christian Chief Ministers in Kerala, a Sikh for a Prime Minister, three Muslims as the President and numerous other minorities in Constitutional positions. Ever heard any of these ever becoming a topic of discussion? Likewise, which policy decision has been supported or challenged on account of religious beliefs? The Cow protection movement took care to stress on the importance of bovine economy and the Save Ganga movement is yet again focused on the importance of the river in the economic sense. Where have religious beliefs dictated policy decisions ever in India?

This is not to say that the Indian tolerance is greater than that of the USA. It is simply that both of them are distinct Nations and have evolved culturally in a different manner. To say that my tolerance is greater than yours is only symptomic of a fluffy, woolly headed analysis.

Coming to the other part on why the mosque is a good idea, the columnist makes the following points (reproduced verbatim):

It will house a place of worship, but it won't blare muezzin calls summoning Muslims to pray five times a day, suggesting that it has a fairly relaxed attitude toward Quranic strictures. Nor will it be a Muslim-only place where members of other faiths are unwelcome; rather it will be open to anyone willing to pay its dues. est (or worst) of all, it won't be "on" Ground Zero, but two blocks and a bend away at a spot not visible to World Trade Center visitors.

None of this is preventing some opponents from bizarrely suggesting that the center represents a surreptitious attempt to glorify Islamic victory on American soil. But a victory statement communicated through esoteric means negates itself because such means signal weakness, not strength. What's more, it is one odd victory statement when its alleged authors are not claiming any moral high ground for their putative side. To the contrary, the couple, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan, who are spearheading the center, have "refudiated" the 9/11 attacks in particular and Islamic terrorism in general.

They have qualms about U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that plenty of nonterrorist Americans would share. And they are Sufis, the moderate and mystical sect of Islam that is known for its refined music and art, not its militancy.

Now the ‘refudiations’:

Local laws in most US towns restrict such loudspeakers in public places. That there will not be a muezzin doesn’t make it different from any other mosque. Likewise, most mosques, even in India do not restrict entry of non-believers, (except for the pulpit). No temple or church restricts entry of non-believers in the USA either. So what’s so special about the ‘openness’ of this mosque?

Most laughable is the assertion of the building being symbolic of defeat, if that is the motive. This is precisely the danger of pop-psychology. Anyone can read something somewhere, consider oneself certified and make all sort of out of the world assertions, expecting others to lap up anything. Of course, people all over the world are fools that they still go to ruins to marvel at the strength and achievements of empires of the yore or admire majestic structures. Using the columnists' logic Qutab is a symbol of Islamic defeat in India and the Vijay Stambh in Chittor is a symbol of Rajput defeat at the hands of the Turks. The tricolour, rather than the Union Jack, over the Red Fort is only an esoteric symbol, certainly signifying that India lost but Britain won. Bah!

Now comes the defence of the promoters of the mosque and they are presented as angelic figures. The columnist only fails to mention that the angel like male figure had contended  “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened". Only today, there was another item on the angelic female asserting that the mosque would be raised at the precise spot and nowhere else. Shades of the Babri Masjid assertions, anyone? The American tolerance and polite requests for shifting of the proposed mosque obviously have no impact on these very American citizens. Yet again, the couple’s supposed Sufi background is highlighted to underline that these are indeed enlightened moderate people. Wish that the columnist had highlighted that alongwith music and mysticism, Sufis have been the sword arm of Islam, their own warrior monks, who carried the Quran by sword in the various parts of the subcontinent; Sylhet, Deccan and Kashmir included. Why go back so much in history when the partition in 1947 threw up powerful pirs who led holy jehad against the Hindus and Sikhs in NWFP, Punjab and Bengal? Being a Sufi is not being a Jain Monk practicing Ahimsa to all!

The columnist then moves on to comparisons with India:

And it would never happen in India, my native country, where Hindu lynch mobs, aided and abetted by the ruling Congress Party, orchestrated a mini pogrom of Sikhs following the 1984 assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguard.

It is out of question that a Sikh gurudwara could ever be erected next to Gandhi's residence, where she was assassinated, against the will of the majority Hindu population. And Indian Muslims have yet not been allowed to rebuild the mosque that Hindus led a national march to tear down with their bare hands in 1991—not even as recompense for the bloodletting they visited upon Muslims following the mosque razing.

“Hindu lynch mobs, aided and abetted by the ruling Congress Party,” – What does the columnist want to say? That the Congress party does not comprise of Hindus or whether the mobs were not connected with the Congress? How does she know that Muslim Congressmen were not a part of the mobs? Wouldn’t it have been more factual simply to state that Congress mobs attacked people from the Sikh community?

The contention on the Gurudwara near Smt Gandhi’s assassination spot is all the more laughable. Firstly, unlike the Ground Zero plot, the place were the assassination happened is not a private property but is owned by the Government. How can the Government of a supposedly secular state build a place of worship? Most importantly - has any such demand ever been made? Will any Hindu ever have any objection to a Gurudwara? Also, will any Congress Government ever do anything that disturbs soil made sacred by the most important family in India?

Finally, the must have Babri reference in the article. The challenges faced by the columnist comes through in her assertion that the mosque was demolished in 1991. In reality, the structure demolition happened in 1992. She then talks of recompese. Recompense would be unending - where to start? It start with the Muslim conquest of the subcontinent or the various temples which were destroyed during riots or those which were destroyed in 1990, in the aftermath of the first Kar Seva, or those which were destroyed post December 6, 1992? Also, shouldn't we get into the point that almost all riots in the demolition aftermath, be it Mumbai, Kolkata, Ahmedabad, Dhubri, Goalpara, Mau, Aligarh, Vadodara, Azamgarh, Indore and other cities were started by Muslim mobs attacking Hindu places of worship? What bloodletting does she talk of, when in each riot, at least a third of all casualties would be from the so-called majority community! The columnist further makes a point that perpetrators of Muslim and Sikh massacres in India have not been brought to justice. While true, she could also have highlighted the fact that killers of Hindus have also not been brought to book in India. It is more a systematic failure of our judicial and law enforcing system that anything else.

One is free to have any belief and support the cause one believes in. However, uninformed and ill-baked assertions are dangerous to the society for they create a make believe world which does not exist and negatively impact the thinking of the reader population. Unfortunately, sloganeering and mouthing of platitudes seems to have replaced respect for facts in the media world.

Oh Kashmir!

Let me begin this post with my head bowed to the Lord Almighty who made a Darshan of the Holy Cave and Bhawan a reality for me!

Early this month, I went off to the state of Jammu & Kashmir for the primary purpose of having a Darshan of the divine manifestation of the Lord at the Holy Cave at Amarnath. The purpose achieved, I spent a day each at Srinagar and Gulmarg (apart from the stay at Sonmarg), before proceeding to Katara for the Darshan of Mata Vaishno Devi on Trikuta hills. For me, this was the first experience of the land of Jammu & Kashmir, and of course, the first prime view of the people who inhabit those lands.

It was my first experience of a city under curfew and was made aware that curfew does not mean a complete absence of civilians from road, nor necessarily a complete cessation of economic activities. The journey to Sonmarg from Srinagar required our driver to halt at a few places, i.e., the travel agency, a tyre repair shop and a yatra halt, wherefrom we proceeded to Sonmarg alongwith other yatra vehicles in a convoy. Curfew was much more relaxed in Ganderbhal and subsequent areas once out of Srinagar. Outside a J&K Bank ATM, numerous Kashmiri youths came up to me asking about the situation in Srinagar and expressing their pain on the happenings asking as to why is it that only Kashmiri stone pelters die when stone pelters in any other part of India are only lathi-charged? Except for mildly responding that deaths are unfortunate but that we don’t really know the situation under which the forces fired, I held back from arguing. Similar tales of Indian brutality got narrated all across, at Sonmarg, at Baltal, at Panjtarini, at Srinagar and at Gulmarg.

Overall, I captured the following impressions in the course of my stay in Kashmir:

• Kashmir is not seen as a part of India

• Kashmiris despise the Omar Government and the entire Abdullah clan. At the same time, Kashmiris have fond memories of the Mufti Government saying that it was the only one which understood and met Kashmiri needs

• Srinagar is quite an affluent city with people none the poorer for the lockouts

• Lots of money seems to be coming in to the valley. The entire stretch of the town of Kangan on Srinagar – Sonmarg route had new swanky houses coming up in place of old poor buildings. What is the source of this sudden and universal prosperity?

• People are inconvenienced by the curfew and demonstrations but see them as integral to their ‘struggle’ against India

• There seems to be an absolute belief that the loss of tourism on account of Kashmir’s imminent ‘independence’ would be more than made up by tourists from Pakistan and other parts of the world. In fact, the opinion seems that disturbances on account of the state being controlled by India has held back tourism growth

• Text message service seems active for local Kashmiris. While my post paid Airtel connection had its sms service barred in Srinagar, I both heard and saw the caretaker of my houseboat receiving a text message on his cellphone. Which network was it?

• The valley seems to be a willing customer to rumour mongers. One evening, the driver of our cab, the shikarawallah, the houseboat caretaker and another Kashmiri on Dal pier told us that eight people have been killed in firing at Ganderbhal. We had traveled the same route the same very evening and did not find any sign of any such event. Further, there was no mention of this supposed event anywhere in any news item, not even on Kashmiri newspaper websites.

• Kashmiri communal amity is a myth. Their mosques are centers of anti India propaganda. Likewise, another myth being propagated is Kashmiri support for the Amarnath Yatra! Support to yatra is a pure economic activity and does not have any other aspect for the local populace. In fact, Kashmiris are furious that the yatris are being allowed to go ahead in spite of the curfew in which their movements are not free. While we personally did not face any hostile mob, our co-guests at the houseboat had their convoy  of vehicles  stoned. Other yatris had similar stories to share. The conduct of the pony-wallahs, the sundry store owners at camps cannot be termed as amicable by any stretch of imagination. Another yatri was almost roughed up by pony-wallahs when he innocently proclaimed that Kashmir is also India!

• Muslims from Poonch are not necessarily pro India and anti Kashmiri, as some sections of the media would like us to believe

• It is only on account of the massive security bandobast that the Amarnath Yatra goes on. Had it not been for them, there wouldn’t be any yatra except probably for a handful of local Kashmiri Hindus making the pilgrimage to the Holy Cave.

• Even for the Government of India, the yatra seems to be more than a religious event and  is probably designed to showcase the security control over the valley. To borrow someone else’s words, the Yatra, with pilgrims from all across the country, though more so from Punjab, is the muscular symbol of India’s presence in the valley

It is disturbing to accept that the overwhelming majority of a part of your country does not want to be with you. As a democrat, the first instinct is to let them secede. Even as a materialist, one would say that Kashmir has been a drain on India’s resources right from 1948. Forget the money, it has taken so many precious young lives of my countrymen. Rather than having such thankless people as a millstone around our neck, it would probably be the best solution to leave them to their desired fate.

However, some harsh reality check throws up the following even more disturbing aspects to the issues in Kashmir:

• Public opinion is fickle and two decades a very small period in the history of a Nation. These very Kashmiris did not want to accede to Pakistan in 1947-48, today they do and who knows of what they will desire tomorrow? Can the destiny of a Nation be entwined to such fickleness? Further, more mature democracies of UK, USA, Spain etc, historically, have nipped all attempts at secession in the bud. Are we a more mature democracy that we allow secessionist voices to gain victory?

• What happens to the rights of the original inhabitants of the land of our sages and Rishis? Or is it that this persecuted minority has no right to the land of their forefathers? Forget about the cleansing of Hindus from Pakistan, we have seen Kashimiriyat in all its glory in 1931, in 1950, in 1986, in 1990, in 1992, in numerous village massacres. Lest someone claim that such instances belong to the hoary past, let that person be aware of the temple burning in Anantnag, (July 2010) and attack on Sikhs in Awantipora (July 2010). It is more than clear that non-Muslims don’t have any place in Kashmir. Are Kashmiri Pandits doomed to exile status for following the call of their Shaivaite faith?

• What happens to the Hindu access to Amarnath, to Kheer Bhawani, to Awantipora, to Martand and the numerous temples and shrines which make up Kashmir?

• If Kashmiri ‘angst’ is not on account of religion, then why are mosques their centers of intrigue, of propaganda and they call for war? Why is the ‘struggle’ against ‘Indian occupying forces’ seen as a Jehad? Why is Anantnag called Islamabad or why has the Shankaracharya Hill been christened as Takht-i-Sulieman by the locals?

• If Kashmir does indeed separate from India, is it not again a reaffirmation of the fact that Hindus and Muslims are indeed a separate Nation? Will it not further give impetus to the fact that the strongest proponents of Pakistan, i.e., Muslims from United Provinces have very much remained in India, even after gaining their desired ‘Land of the Pure’?

• Elections are routinely rigged all across the country. In fact, states like West Bengal and Bihar have rarely seen a complete ‘fair’ election process. Why is it that these states don’t want to secede from India?

• The vanquished in the allegedly rigged elections of 1987 wanted to impose Shariat in Kashmir and wanted to use the Assembly to pass a resolution of independence. Supposedly, Syed Salahuddin and Yasin Malik picked up the gun when they were failed by rigging. Does listening to the Kashmiris mean listening to cries of ‘freedom’?

• If Kashmir indeed does separate, how will the state be divided? Kashmir becoming independent/going to Pakistan and Ladakh and Jammu remaining with India or even the latter two being divided on religious lines? If the latter happens, all we would be left with would be Leh and some three and a half districts of Jammu

• If we are indeed an occupying force, then why to allow so many anti Nationals, both in Kashmir and in mainland India to campaign against India?

• Has not the Kashmiri ‘alienation’ been fed by the special status accorded to that state? How can any reasonable person expect that people being told that they are different from us, start believing that they are indeed one of us?

The answers to the issues plaguing Kashmir are obviously not easy. Only, let not the fear of our own demons or the exhaustion of holding on to our historical lands overwhelm us so much that we take the easiest way out!

Return of the 'Prodigal'

Over the past few days, view disseminating machines are agog with news of yet another homecoming, of that of a semi mustachioed guy with a deep baritone, who had been unceremoniously sacked from the BJP less than a year back. What has changed in the intervening period is anyone’s guess, ditto for what was lost when this guy was sacked or for what would be gained if he is taken back!

Jaswant Singh had been among the leading lights of the BJP for years. In fact, Jaswant was among the few frontline leaders of the BJP who could give ‘rootless wonders’ of the Congress a run for their money, even on a bad day. No matter if he lost the general elections, he could rely on his friendship with M/s Advani & Vajpayee to secure him important portfolios, even if it meant displeasuring the RSS. No matter that he would have lost a Panchayat election had he contested independently, he could count upon central support to destabilize Vasundhara Raje’s Government in Rajasthan. A person who would have scarcely bought a vote to the BJP had the standing that he could openly criticize BJP’s involvement in the Ayodhya movement. However, to give him his due, he was not a bad minister, though not an outstanding one either. But does that count a contribution enough for all the honours that the BJP bestowed upon him? Once expelled, Jaswant was like a woman scorned and no expletives were mild enough for his party of thirty years.

This is precisely the only man whose summary expulsion from the party was welcomed by all and sundry, except for those who wish BJP’s complete demise. Not a case like that of Kalyan Singh or Uma Bharati or the moving away of Babulal Marandi, Jaswant was an exit for which a few tears were shed, if at all. Even if for argument’s sake alone, we accept that Jaswant’s expulsion was incorrect, does it automatically imply that his return will set that wrong right? The BJP may do well do ask itself the following questions before it does take Jaswant back:

1. Is the BJP accepting that it was at fault when it expelled Jaswant?

2. Or is it that Jaswant has accepted that his conduct in promoting his sectarian view was wrong?

3. While Jaswant does have a lot to gain by coming back to the BJP, what does BJP have to gain by getting this ‘prodigal son’ back? A single vote, maybe!

4. What message is it sending to those who have stayed on in this party for decades, working behind the scene without getting any rewards?

5. What does it say about the importance of ideology in the BJP? That there is no ideology and whims and personal eccentricities of its senior members define ideology?

6. What next? What will Jaswant do or what would BJP do with Jaswant?

7. What would be the impact of these decisions on the party’s image? The NDA anyways remains a lodge where anyone can walk in and leave at will; the party too seems to be taking purposeful strides towards becoming a mirror image of the NDA

8. Finally, what harm would befall the BJP if Jaswant remains outside? Or is it that Jaswant’s return is a personal endeavor of a man who is perpetually ashamed of having led the greatest mass movement in Independent India; a man who can stand everything but adverse comments of those who would never vote for him?

While it is elementary to accept that defeat weakens self belief, it numbs the mind to see a once surging party bending over backwards to support individuals like Jaswant, Mallya and Jethmalani. No wonder that its so-called allies and its opponents treat it like dirt

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.