Is our Flag National for only parts of the Country?

As I write this piece, the sham over BJP's proposed Flag Hoisting at Lal Chowk on the occasion of Republic Day continues unabated. A sham it is for neither the party which is ostensibly exercising its Constitutional right on Indian Land nor those, who profess that their concerns lie with maintaining of law and order and providing the 'healing touch' to the 'oppressed' masses of Kashmir are in any ways bothered with their professed interests.

The arguments in favour of allowing the BJP to hoist the tricolour seem quite strong for no one in his mind can deny that the Constitution and Courts allow any Indian Citizen to carry the National Flag and Jammu & Kashmir, for all its insurgency, is still governed as Indian territory. That said, it is the BJP's championing of the cause of the National Flag that leaves one with feelings of unease. After all, it is that party which did not hesitate to jettison the very cause which brought it to the forefront of Indian politics and more importantly, nothing which it did in Jammu & Kashmir, during its reign at the centre can be remotely said to be a symbol of muscular Nationalism that it proclaims to uphold. It is a party which seems bereft of any ideology and any commitment to anything save a naked pursuit of power, with leaders who are more worried about the opinions being peddled by Marxists-Leninists in television studios. While what exactly is the motive behind BJP's march may be left open to question, what seems to be beyond doubt is the unlikeliness of they being driven by Shyama Prasad Mookherjee's ultimate sacrifice in 1953.

But before descending to a wholesale condemnation of the BJP's yatra, let us for a moment pause and evaluate the arguments against allowing the flag hoisting at Srinagar. The most commonly repeated ones are:

• BJP should force RSS to hoist the National Flag at Nagpur - RSS is a social organization and not owned by the Government of India. Their Nagpur premises are not owned by the Government nor is that land a public land. How can then the organization, even if they don't desire to hoist the tricolour be forced to do so? Moreover, the RSS does hoist the flag on select occasions and most importantly, what is the connection in between Lal Chowk and Keshav Kunj?

• Kashmir's fragile peace will shatter - Firstly, Kashmir's fragile peace was brought about more by the advent of winters, fatigue of the common agitationist and some success of security forces to intercept key leaders of the summer agitation and not because a dim-witted panel of some deadwood started doing rounds of the state. Kashmir valley doesn't really require sound reason to start bloody agitations - think 1990 Pandit cleansing, 2008 Amarnath Yatra opposition, 2009 Shopian supposed rape and 2010 (God alone knows the reason). Further, the last yatra was successfully conducted way back in 1991 when terrorism was at its peak. When that flag hoisting did not simmer the cauldron further, where is the reason to think that this flag hoisting will trigger events which will lead to unforeseen consequences for all involved.

• BJP is playing politics with the National flag - Of course yes. Its a political party isn't it? And except for extremely rare instances in world history, when have change movements been distinct from political parties or leaders who lead them? If the Congress's pandering to minority appeasement through a Sachar committee is fine, what is wrong with the BJP using more constitutional means to appeal to its constituency?

• Flag hoisting will hurt minority sentiments - Please note. By contending thus, the 'secular' lobby itself is simply reinforcing the suspicion that even 64 years after getting their 'Land of the Pure', the largest minority is not Indian cenough and that their the tricolour hoisting is an insult to them. Do these 'seculars' even realise the import of what they are saying? First it was Vande Ma Taram which insulted minorities, now it is the tricolour which insults minorities. What next? Being called Indians insults minorities??

• Nothing will come out of the flag hoisting - Maybe. But what certainly will come out if the flag hoisting is disallowed is the naked symbolic proof of Kashmir's de facto secession from India. Lal Chowk is the flag where the Pakistani flag is usually hosted by separatists of all hues. Here, we have a procession of patriotic Indians, comprising of the quintessential common man, armed with nothing but tricolours, prepared to risk bullets, stones and arrests, being held back by the very forces who are supposedly committed to maintaining the territorial integrity of our Nation! How much more ironic could it get?

• The common man in Kashmir has nothing to do with the flag hoisting - Yet again, Kashmir valley is being substituted for the entire state of Jammu & Kashmir. Moreover, how do we know if all the people are really against the flag hoisting? At one end, the Central and State Governments would like us to believe that it is only a handful of people who are instigating those who happen to love India in their heart of hearts. If it is indeed so, let the yatra proceed and let such people join the event. What more potent answer could the separatists get in their own backyards?

In a nutshell, while the BJP's intent behind the Rashitriya Ekta Yatra may certainly reek of ignoble intentions, that by itself is not sufficient a cause to disallow hoisting of the flag. By its actions, both the governments is only strengthening Kashmir's separatism at the cost of National pride.

Bogus Outrage over Dr Binayak Sen

Human Rights activists are aghast that the good Dr Binayak Sen has finally been done in by an oppressive state, keen on eliminating voices which speak for the marginalized. Quite poignant was Dr Sen’s query to the trial court judge – “What is Section 124A?” indicating once and for all that the poor man is completely above even the remotest act of scheming, leave aside something as momentous as sedition. 

Unfortunately for the left-liberal cabal and despite their sustained brainwashing efforts, capacity to reason still exists in Indians and a plain analysis of Dr Sen’s ‘innocence’ will indicate that there is much more to what they would like us to know and believe. After all, Dr Sen’s trial had been on for months on precisely the grounds on which he has been convicted. Even before that, he had become a cause célèbre for activists of all hues following his long detention without trial and he had the benefit of professional activists running to him with all support they could muster. Further, he himself does not deny association with Maoists and had held numerous meetings with Maoist leaders over the years. And not unimportantly, he himself is a doctor, a professor at CMC Vellore, and by logical extension, a person of above average intelligence. Lastly, he was present for most of the hearings. Hence, by no stretch of imagination, even when impossibly believed that the police never gave him/his lawyers a copy of the charge-sheet, can it be believed that he was being genuinely curious when he posed his now famous words.

One wonders if Dr Sen’s question was a mockery of the Indian Law or a more pedestrian attempt to play to the gallery. It is not without reason that these champions of all causes have respect for law only when it suits them. The moment laws become inconvenient or worse, a fellow traveler is convicted, rise shrill cries of unfairness. However, while cries of unfairness can still be termed innocuous; what becomes dangerous is the underlying logic of their defense. ‘We don’t recognize the law or the authority which had made this law. So where is the question of our breaking the law?’ Such logic and shamelessness, cloaked in sophistry makes one wonder if India or in fact, the civilized world would not be a better place if such professional activists are packed off to totalitarian societies, where they can fight to their hearts and lives content!

It has been numerously alleged that Dr Sen is a victim of state vendetta, a noble soul who has devoted his life for the benefit of the impoverished locals. Statement of support from Noam Chomsky and 22 sundry Noble prize winners are routinely trotted out in support of this contention. Let us for a moment pause and visit Dr Sen’s supposed Schweitzer like achievements. While Dr Sen has won awards, he was a relatively unknown name even within Chhattisgarh, till he won notoriety. In fact, unlike other Social Workers, who work and win recognition within their native space, before becoming international figures, curiously, in Dr Sen’s case, external bodies seem to be more enlightened on his social service when compared to Indian bodies, except those with which he was associated, i.e., his alma mater CMC, Vellore, and the Indian Academy of Social Sciences. While one cannot deny the fact that he had traded off a probably lucrative career in comforts of a city to a probably difficult and uncertain life in the hinterland, what exactly has he done that would deserve so much of attention to his supposed humanitarian activities? Regarding state vendetta, what exactly does the state need to be vengeful about? Granted that it is so helpless that it cannot apprehend and punish those who openly preach secession and anarchy, but isn’t it stretching credulity to the extremes to believe that it has focused all its energies in getting one person convicted for the crimes of all others? 

Some of the more ‘noble’ ‘intellectuals’ are proclaiming that Dr Sen was punished for helping the poor? Is it so? Honestly, while people have been punished for speaking out for the downtrodden, none seem to have ever been punished plainly for ‘helping the poor’. And we are talking of an era like no other time in Indian history. Social Activists are ruling the roost and are a rule to themselves, serving as super constitutional authorities, i.e., Jean Dreze, Harsh Mander, Teesta Setalvad among others. How can then a fellow traveler suffer on account of the State, of all? And if at all, Dr Sen’s social work was limited to providing medical facilities to the poor, how exactly did he get mired in Maoist activities? Certainly, tending the poor does not involve meeting Maoist ideologues and issuing statements denouncing Salwa Judum.

It is quite ironic that while Indresh of the RSS is sought to be implicated as a terrorist based on one supposed meetings with other bombing accused, that too years back, clear evidence of Dr Sen’s deep involvement with the Maoist ‘struggle’ is haughtily dismissed as mere social service.

It would do good to us to remember a few points regarding his case;

• The Kolkata based Maoist Piyush Guha has accepted that he was ferrying money, messages and letters for Sanyal. Interrogation of another Maoist, Bikash Bhattacharya, in Bihar has corroborated Guha’s testimony
• Sen had arranged for Sanyal’s rented accommodation, vouching for his ‘credentials’ to three landlords, and helped him open a bank account.
• A letter from Maoists thanking him for his support was found in Sen’s residence
• What made Dr Sen meet Naxalite Narendra Sanyal some 30 times over a period of one month?

Much has been made of the jail wardens turning hostile. That itself is testimony to the Maoist menace. If the tale of state oppression were indeed true, Jail wardens, being Government Servants had the maximum to lose by turning their back on the State itself. But we must not forget that these jail officials work in trying conditions, cut off from civilization and most of the time, at mercy of the Naxalites. Dr Sen could have been more roundly convicted if they hadn’t turned hostile. But could the state have guaranteed security of life and property against the Maoists to these hapless officials? Hence, if the officials have indeed turned hostile, isn’t it more likely that they have done so out of fear of the Maoists rather than a love for Dr Sen?

Most importantly, Dr Sen has the path to appeals open to him. No-one stops him from appealing the verdict in higher courts. Why then the shrill voices asking for his release? Is it simply because of the fact that he is a fellow traveler of the Left-Liberal cabal that he is above the law? Why should not the laws applicable to other Indians applied on him? If we appreciate the anguished howls of these activists regarding Dr Sen, what right do we have to question the acts of parents of Manu Sharma and Vikas Yadav? They too wanted to save their near and dear ones and likewise believed that their progeny were being ‘fixed’ by a blood-thirsty media. Let us save our society from this loony fringe which seems to believe that crimes of any sort are fine provided they are committed by those who are deemed ‘ideologically correct’.

While it can be argued if the quantum of Dr Sen’s crimes did indeed deserve life imprisonment, the fact the corrupt go scot free or bigger criminals roam around unpunished cannot be a valid excuse to his release. If it were so, let the country disband its criminal law and its enforcement agency; let us all sit on morchas till all the ‘big fish’ come and atone for their sins. After all, the crime of a petty murderer, a thief and a roadside ruffian does pale in comparison to the crimes being committed by the powerful; or don’t they?

Facts or Faith?

This note has been late in coming, so late that the ‘news/issue’ is very much on the backburner after having held the Nation’s attention and breath for a few tense days. 

The historic verdict on Ayodhya was unexpected to state the least. What was not unexpected was the frothing, vitriolic reaction of the ‘progressive-liberal’ media which could not digest the court judgment, particularly its unanimous decision to handover the precise spot housing Ram Lalla idols to Ram Lalla Virajman. This judgment proves that adage like nothing else does, judgment must not only be done, it should also be seen to have been done. Had there not been a Muslim among the Honorable justices, all of them, and not only Justice Sharma, would have been tarred by the brush of being RSS sympathizers by our ELM.

A few of you may have received ‘rogue’ emails detailing foreign holdings in Indian Media Houses insinuating that the ‘anti-Hindu’ bias in our English Language Media and from the last few years, in the Indian Languages Media, flows on account of their financing and ownership lying with shady evangelical and Wahabbi organizations abroad. Since this mail does not provide and source or date for this information and I myself am not aware if such detailed information is publicly available, I, alongwith a vast majority of my countrymen would rather ignore such mails. 

However, this denial in no way negates my belief in the presence of ideologically committed warriors in influential positions in Media Houses who have ensured that the prime focus of media has shifted from broadcasting news to peddling views. In a general sense, while our citizens would be discomfited by the shenanigans of a vixen like news editor causing death of our securitymen in siege like conditions through her relentless information sharing diatribe, most would prefer to excuse such acts as the impact of high adrenalin in tense situations. Hence, for the discerning, chatterati reaction to the Ayodhya verdict might have come as an eye-opener on the ‘not-so-hidden’ agenda of these warriors.

Till the very moment of the judgment being made public, almost everyone in the ELM and quite a large section of the Hindutva warriors themselves, were quite convinced that the court could rule in no way other than handing over the site to Muslims. So, in addition to sermons on the necessity of maintaining peace, honoring the court judgment and unconcealed glee on the very visible prospect of a severe setback to the knickerwallahs, the news anchors kept on harking on how the blacker than black hole stain of December 06, 1992 needs to be erased. However, as minutes passed, we could soon hear the exuberant words of Ravi Shankar Prasad narrating the crux of the court’s proclamation and as the enormity of the court’s ‘sacrilege’ sank in, our progressive-liberals reactions morphed from smugness to disbelief to anger and finally vitriol.

Gone was the talk of the need to maintain decorum or to honor the court’s judgment. How could the court, decide in favor of Hindus? Wasn’t the court condoning the acts of December 06 through this judgment? A breast beating Shabnam Hashmi gave us a further glimpse of her bigoted mindset when she proclaimed that the second class status of Muslims, had been affirmed by the court. It would have been funny, had it not been so pathetic, to see columns of ill-informed opinions castigating the Court for giving its judgment on basis of ‘faith’ and not ‘facts’. Very surprising considering the fact that the court judgment was over 10,000 pages in length and even the best speed-readers would have taken at least a couple of days to simply have gone through the report. How then, could these news-anchors and columnists, ignorant of law and nuances of legalspeak, be out with their denunciations the next day itself? When the judgment itself wasn’t read, how could those ignoramuses decide that the basis of judgment itself was incorrect?

An aside of this is the usual progressive-liberal defense of obscene art or defamatory, insulting literature. “Have you even read/seen it?” they sneer, confronting protestors hurt by attacks on their temples and Gods. Only, these very people forgot to read the judgment before being up in arms when their sentiments and beliefs were hurt. Huh!

An almost universal target of condemnation has been the court’s recognition of Ram Lalla as a juristic person. Eminences such as Dileep Padgaonkar condemned this as a ‘sleight of law’ and darkly insinuated that Hinduism has been insulted by the Court’s act of equating God to a mere mortal. Of course, since Dileep is only a journalist, he cannot be expected to know law in toto. At the same time, as a journalist, he is expected to research before peddling his views. Not only have Indian Laws, the Contract Act included, recognized deities as juristic persons, they have been defined as minors in perpetuity, i.e., their affairs would be handled by their guardian. Mr Padgaonkar and his ilk would do good to know that grants by kings, gentry and the common man were made in the name of the Lord and in any dispute before courts, the primary deity of the temple would be a party to the dispute. So, what was so new in the Court making Ram Lalla a party to the dispute? On the insult to Hinduism, had Mr Padgaonkar been a little aware of our culture, he would have known that the entire edifice of Bhakti has been built on the Lord being a friend, a lover, a father, a mother, a companion of all times and one who feels joy, pain, anger and indifference like any other human being. But this is really asking for too much, isn’t it? Expecting our know-it-all journalists to be aware of their Indian roots?

On a more serious note, the court was to adjudicate on three questions primarily: whether there existed a temple at the spot of the demolished structure; who owns the land and did the idols of Lord Ram, Sita and Lakshman exist inside the mosque, or were the idols placed inside on 22 December, 1949?

Now, how could the court have decided otherwise on at least two of these issues? Namely, the pre-existence of a temple and the presence of idols in the structure. Except for the committed warrior band of ‘eminent historians’, no sane person could dispute the Himalayan evidence supporting existence of a temple before the mosque was constructed. How could an adjudicating authority ignore facts and go with the deep-rooted faith of these eminences that the mosque was constructed on an unused piece of land? Likewise, all the judges concurred that the idols were placed in the structure on the intervening night of December 22, 1949. What is there which can be disputed in this matter? Regarding another issue of whether the structure that existed was a mosque and whether it was constructed by Babur, the judges had different views and presented reasons on why they decided so. On the more critical aspect of ownership, before jumping to conclusions, let us review the salient facts of the issue:

• The party representing Muslims, AIBMAC, did not have any sort of possession of the mosque at any time
•  The premier Muslim body in Indian, Muslim Personal Law Board was not a party to the dispute at any time
• The Sunni Waqf board did not contest dispossession of the structure till 1961
• No Muslim body demanded that the idols be removed after they had been placed in 1949
• Hindu Mahasabha did not have possession of the land at any time
• Nirmohi Akhada contended that they were the traditional keepers of the temple, but could not prove ownership
• Retd Justice Deoki Nandan Agrawal filed suit seeking representation as the friend of Ram Lalla Virajman

Now, except for some records (supposedly incomplete) from the medieval ages which indicate grants and collections in the name of Ram Lalla, there is no documentary evidence of any of the party having possession of the land at any time. The litigant whose claim seems closest to being the most valid is of Ram Lalla himself, as he was and is the deity in possession and the fact of his dispossession being barred by limitation was negated by his being a perpetual minor. Hence, more than 400 years after the demolition of His temple, his claim to property was renewed the moment he was placed under the domes of the structure in question. What could the courts have done? Handed over the land to Muslims in negation of these facts, just to ensure that ‘faith’ of the ostensible champions of minorities was maintained?

What should be questioned is the decision of the courts to partition the property? The court seems to have depended on actual usage to decide tripartite ownership while one can argue that if both the existence of a temple and Ram Lalla’s claim has been upheld by the court, how can a part of the property be given to other parties?

It is probably here that the court’s desire to appear fair finally made it over-ride harsh facts of the case!

Finally, the Hindutva organizations have not exactly covered themselves with glory with their conduct before the verdict was announced. While there certainly cannot be any doubt towards the strength of their ardor with regards to the cause of Ram Janmabhoomi, the apologetic tone, the apprehensions regarding the court verdict and the bravado, betrayed that leading lights of the greatest mass movement in Indian history post independence were swayed more by rhetoric and had probably nurtured guilt in their hearts, quite a lot, which they seem to have felt as getting washed away by the court judgment.

Are We All Biharis Now?

Lest I be taken for a sourpuss, let me congratulate the JDU-BJP alliance on its spectacular victory in Bihar Assembly polls. Greater congratulations still, for the populace of Bihar, which rewarded performance over rhetoric and rejected those who promised a journey to the ‘olden days’.

Certainly, 206 out of 243 is an overwhelming mandate, beaten only by Congress (I)’s 404 out of 514 in 1984 and the SSP/SDF’s 32/32 in Sikkim, over many elections. There is yet again no doubt that the Bihar elections revolved, at least for the ELM, around one person, Nitish Kumar and with his re-victory, he is now seen as a potential Prime Ministerial candidate of the NDA in 2014. While it can be argued that the BJP’s gains in these elections have been more spectacular, i.e., a gain of 36 over the 55 seats it held previously, the ELM has been reluctant to credit the BJP for this gain and insist that this is a rub-off effect of Nitish’s glory. It, however, does not explain on why the Sun, i.e., (Nitish and JDU) have shone less brightly than the moon (the BJP in this case)

However, moving ahead of the self congratulatory posturing of the victors, it will do good to all of us to analyze and accept that while by no means ambiguous, the Nitish/NDA victory in these elections owes much to the vagaries of our ‘First past the post’ electoral system rather than any profound change in the political preferences of the voting public. Let us run through a few figures here:

·    General Elections 1984 (63.56% polling); Congress (I) 404 of 514 seats with a vote share of 49.1%

·    Assembly Polls Bihar 2000 (62.57% polling); BJP+Samata Party+JDU - 122 of 324 seats with a Vote share of 29.76%. RJD 124 seats with 28.24% vote share.

·    General Elections 2004 (Bihar only) 58.02% polling; NDA – 11 seats with 36.13% of votes; RJD+LJP – 29 seats with 46.68% of votes

·    Assembly Polls Bihar 2005 (46.50% polling); BJP + JDU – 25.52%; No of seats – 92; RJD – 25.07% & 75 seats while LJP + Congress (I) 17.62% and 39 seats

·    Assembly Re Polls Bihar 2005 (45.85% polling); BJP + JDU – 143 seats with 36.11% vote share. RJD+Congress+NCP 64 seats with 30.33% vote share

·    Assembly polls West Bengal 2006 (81.97% polling) - Left Front 227 out of 294 seats with 49.47% vote share. Congress – 21 seats with 14.71% vote share and the TMC 30 seats with 26.64% vote share

·    General Elections 2009 (Bihar only) NDA – 32 seats with 36.13% of votes; RJD+LJP – 4 seats with 28.03% of votes

·   Assembly Polls Bihar 2010 (52% polling), NDA – 206 seats with 39.07% of votes, RJD+LJP – 25 seats with 25.59% of votes

Thus, we see that the NDA, with only a 3.14% increase in vote share registered an increase of 63 seats.  It underlines that while the magnitude of NDA’s victory is amazing, the same is not backed by voting preferences of the public. For that matter, BJP’s victories in Gujarat have been on a vote share of around 50% but the number of seats won has hovered around 2/3rds. The Left Front victory in Bengal (2006) was on similar lines, around 3/4^th of seats backed by around 50% of popular vote. 

This is not the first time that we have noticed the vagaries of our existing electoral system. The BJP won around 34% of votes in the 1993 Uttar Pradesh polls, as compared to around 28% share of the SP-BSP combine but both ended with 177 seats each. More recently, in 2009 General Elections, the Congress gained around 2.5% vote share but that gain got translated in 63 additional Lok Sabha seats. It is a sense of déjà vu when we find the ELM getting breathless commending Nitish’s victory today. The same scenes and statements got bandied around when the UPA won in 2009 – Defeat of communalism, rejection of divisive politics, vote for development, so on and so forth.

While getting carried away in our self-exaltations comes naturally to us Indians, NDA in general and Nitish in particular, will do good to acknowledge a few points.

·    The Bihar vote is certainly a vote for development but more importantly, it is a sign of growing disenchantment with the RJD-LJP combine which experienced a significant decline of around 8%-10% of votes, even when accounting for the fact that these parties fought the last polls separately. In a way, while being a positive vote for NDA, it is a stronger repudiation of the RJD-LJP combine

·    That said, they still command loyalty of a quarter of voting population, and as West Bengal has shown, a down politician is not an out politician. It may take only a small event but before one knows, the NDA might be staring at serious opposition again

·    In spite of the many positives of the Nitish-Modi government and real fears of the state going back to the RJD, there wasn’t any strong wave of people coming out and voting for the NDA to reward it, a phenomenon which contrasts badly with 2000, when scared of an NDA victory, the Muslim and Yadav communities voted in droves and shored up the polling percentage. Hence, while Nitish may be appreciated, it is not necessary that he would be aptly supported by people in face of a determined opposition

·   Let not the BJP gloat over its ‘better strike rate’. Much of this victory, more pronouncedly in the Seemanchal region, owes to the absence of tactical voting by Muslims, who while not voting for the BJP, did not vote tactically to defeat its candidates. BJP’s base remained where it was and unlike in Orissa, where it managed to retain its base even after BJD’s termination of their alliance, it remains to be seen if it can display that much tenacity when Nitish does a Naveen

·    The NDA stands further weakened as the stake of JDU in continuing with an alliance with the BJP has vanished now. If the JDU remains in the NDA, it will have more to do with the search for relevance for leaders like Sharad Yadav and the rump of George Fernandes’s followers, rather than Nitish’s need for the BJP

·   While the ELM has all along been advising the BJP to completely break off from Hindutva and points to Bihar as a symbol of India fed up with identity politics, it fails to mention that Hindutva has been conspicuous by its absence in BJP campaigns right from 1995 though with a notable exception of Gujarat 2002 polls. Without any defining identity or program, the BJP is reduced to merely an electoral machine of diminishing capability and it will be reduced to a Regional party, somewhat larger than Jana Sangh in its hey-days

·   Most importantly, both the BJP and the JDU have not jettisoned caste. Not only has Nitish managed to create a solid support base among non Yadav OBCs and non Pasi Dalits, his championing of minority causes has seen the so called Pasmanda Muslims swearing by him. Likewise, the BJP has silently but resolutely courted the Upper Caste and landed gentry in Bihar. Other than caste, while Nitish has very certainly managed to make Bihar a much safer place to be in, his courting of Anand Mohan Singh (who ultimately supported Congress), Taslimuddin and the presence of numerous history-sheeters in the winners' list of both the JDU and the BJP give credence to the fact that the pragmatic Nitish realises that it will be many more years, if and if indeed, voters jettison caste and other parochial considerations.

Yet again, the purpose of this write-up was not to belittle the NDA's victory in Bihar. The victory is heartening and does indicate that the voters are turning their back on those whose only contribution is to act as promoters/spokespersons of a particular community. After all, the same voter did repose faith time and again in the Laloo brand of politics even as he saw Bihar descending into an abyss. Fortunately, the winners seem to have their feet more firmly on ground as compared to the ELM which seems to be reading a little too much in the victor's win.

A partial review of Wendy Doniger’s ‘Hindus – An Alternative History’

Professor Wendy Doniger is a controversial figure.

A towering personality in the field of Indology, Ms Doniger’s notoriety in academic circles stems from her insistence on translating, interpreting and comparing elements of Hindu mythology through contemporary lenses of gender, sexuality and identity. Much of the organized resistance to Ms Doniger flows from Rajeev Malhotra’s seminal analysis of the state of Indology studies in his essay ‘RISA Lila 1 – Wendy’s Child Syndrome’, published in Sulekha, in 2002. RISA stands for Religions In South Asia and is a unit within AAR, i.e., The American Academy of Religion, the official organization of academic scholars of Religious Studies in the Western world. Mr Malhotra forcefully argued that Hinduism studies in America are dominated by a cabal of academics led by Ms Doniger, suffers from deep set systemic biases, tends to psychoanalyze without context to present the ‘kinky’ side to Hinduism and worst of all, smacks of academic dishonesty in condemning academics who dare to differ from the strain of Hinduism being peddled by Ms Doniger and her cabal.

Predictably, Mr Malhotra’s essay kicked up a storm and the entire phalanx of academics who supported Mr Malhotra’s claims were dismissed as Hindutva sympathizers. On the positive, Encyclopedia Encarta recognized the validity of Sankrant Sanu’s exposure of systemic biases in Ms Doniger’s presentation of Hinduism and replaced her write up with a one by Prof Arvind Sharma. This apart, the development which could be said to be far more positive was a new found assertion of Indian Academics in analysis of writings on Hinduism, an effort which got ably reflected in the work ‘Invading the Sacred’ which conducted rigorous reviews of works by ‘Wendy’s children’ - Sarah Caldwell (Kali as the eroticized demon mother), Paul Courtright (Ganesh as a eunuch suffering from Oedipus complex), Jeffrey Kripal (Ramakrishna Paramhansa as a repressed homosexual) and the general inaccuracies in Hinduism research in American universities.

Of course, like any other good Samaritan, Ms Doniger was cloaked with the divine robe of a ‘martyr’ when an egg was hurled at her during one of her university talks, when the controversy was its peak. While the egg missed her, of course fortunately, this murderous assault on her person was sufficient for Ms Doniger to declare herself above debates completely!

With an impressive line up of memberships, awards and publications behind her, her opus ‘Hindus – An Alternative History’ was among the most awaited books in the field of religion in 2009. While I had formed an impression of Ms Doniger’s work through a perusal of her comments, interviews and nomenclature of her works like Asceticism and Eroticism in the Mythology of Siva (Oxford University Press, 1973), Women, Androgynes, and Other Mythical Beasts (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), Tales of Sex and Violence: Folklore, Sacrifice, and Danger in the Jaiminiya Brahmana (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), The Bedtrick: Tales of Sex and Masquerade. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000, her translation of Kamasutra, among others, I certainly wanted to have a first hand experience of a book authored by Ms Doniger to check for myself if her notoriety is really deserved.

Let me first confess that my knowledge of our Vedas, Puranas and Epics is limited for I cannot even remotely claim to be a scholar. Secondly, I don’t know Sanskrit and my limited knowledge rests on translations and commentaries in Hindi and English alone. Hence, my appreciation or critique of Ms Doniger’s work solely rests on a logical analysis of patterns supported by my knowledge (even though limited) of our scriptures. Those interested in a scholarly review of her book are requested to read this, by Vishal Agarwal.

After going through the book in its entirety, I have no hesitation in accepting that Ms Doniger is a learned personality. At the same time, she is clearly driven by an agenda to present Hinduism as a decadent and oppressive religion without having any central theme at all. The problems with her ‘alternative’ history can be summarised in a few points. Since I neither have the inclination nor the means to go into a deep analysis, I will restrict myself to pointing out to a couple of errors under each ‘problem’. The broad deficit areas in this work are:

• Tendency to provide the most sexualized interpretation to a word or an event: Too many to recount. A few interesting ones are with regards to the tale of Svetketu. Mahabharata holds that in ancient times, women were free to intercourse with anyone even after marriage. However, when a young Svetketu got to know of this ‘freedom’ after witnessing his mother going with another man, he bought about a change in established sexual mores and made fidelity a bedrock of marriage. So far so good. However, not content with this ‘license’, Ms Doniger makes the other man take away Svetketu’s mother ‘forcefully’ – all under the benign gaze of the husband and the son. Obviously, consensual sex is not as exciting as rape for Ms Doniger. In yet another instance, she mentions Rishi Kutsa, cohabiting with Indra’s wife – Shachi, taking advantage of his strong facial resemblance with Indra. Our scriptures content themselves with merely stating that Shachi mistook Kutsa for Indra once following which the Rishi shaved off his hair. The scriptures must be wrong. If Ms Doniger says that this sex by deception happened, it must have happened.

• Blanket assertions which are not necessarily based on facts: Too many to recount. Funnily, she does not even have an idea of the length of the Mahabharata. She claims it as comprising of 75000 verses, 'rounded off' to 1 lakh! Whoa! She quotes Arthashastra numerous times and then goes on to state that temples started getting constructed in India only in the late Gupta age. Wonder whether she missed the entire guidelines devoted to managing temples, priests and the offerings, as given in this 4th Century BC work of Chanakya. Almost an entire sub-chapter in her book is devoted in Rama’s suspicions on Lakshman’s repressed desires for Sita. Source? Her interpretations of what might have been going in their minds! 

• Mutual contradictions: The book begins with quite a promise when she accepts Indological studies being wrongly interpreted on account of ‘false negatives’, i.e., absence of something somewhere does not necessarily mean that the thing is absent altogether. She accepts that while occasional beef consumption might have happened, cow slaughter was a social taboo right from the very early Vedic days. However, when commenting on the Hindutva movement, she approvingly quotes DN Jha and commends him for proving that the sacred cow is a recent myth. Likewise, she moves on to Ram Janmabhoomi and points to absence of any reference to the demolition of the temple in Goswami Tulsidas’s Ramcharitmanas and claims that this denotes that the demolition never happened. For that matter, Ramcharitmanas doesn’t mention Akbar or Surdas either. Surely, this means that both these characters are mythical and do not have any base in history?

• Exalting peripheral and contemporary works to the level of central mainstream works: Ms Doniger interprets the epics based on 20th century works. So, we have Nina Paley’s ‘Sita Sings the Blues’ being treated as a retelling of Ramayan, at par with Valmiki’s work. We have instances of works written as recent as those by Ashok Banker and Shashi Tharoor being quotes and analysed. An obscure work on Sita and Ram being siblings has been quoted so many times that one may be excused for believing that the mainstream belief of their being husband and wife belongs to the fringe 

• Out of context interpretation of events: She compares the treatment of crow in both Ramayan and Ramcharitmanas and claims that on account of the positive impact of Buddhism in India, Ramcharitmanas shows Rama as being compassionate to that lowliest of creature, the crow, while the same Rama had blinded the crow in one eye in Ramayan. However, she fails to mention that the crow blinded in one eye was Jayant, the wayward son of Indra, who had pecked and clawed at Sita till she bled on the foot. While Ram shot an arrow which followed Jayant round the universe so that he be killed, the compassionate Sita intervened for his life and Rama spared him with the arrow only plucking out one eye. Most importantly, she fails to mention that this incident is presented in both Valimik’s and Tulsidas’s versions of Ramayana. The other crow is Kakbhushundi and is present primarily in Ramcharitmanas. He is the narrator of the tale and has been blessed by Rama. In another instance, she berates Rama and Lakshmana for disfiguring Shurpnakha for merely expressing her desire to have sex with them while the ‘progressive’ Bhima married Hidimba when she had expressed such desire. The points about Shurpnakha attacking Sita to kill her, Rama and Lakshmana sparing her life, their being self constrained by the vow of ‘Ek patni vrata’, of Hidimba desiring to be the wife of Bhima and Kunti’s and Yudhishthira’s blessing of the marriage are all of course minor irritants in the tale.

• Selective quotations: She quotes the lesser known Bhavishya Purana to show how Gautam Buddha was sought to be integrated in Hinduism as a demon, i.e., making people forget the Vedic religion so that the Brahmins can salvage their souls later. She of course makes no mention of the fact that 7 other Puranas –Vishnu Purana, Bhagavata Purana, Garuda Purana, Agni Purana, Narada Purana, Linga Purana and Padma Purana, besides works like Gita Govinda and Harivansa, speak of Budhha as a divine manifestation of Lord Vishnu. How different does it make her from JNU variety of historians who implant obscurity on Ayodhya on account of its absence of its mention (though Saket is mentioned) in the lesser known Vishnu Smriti when other texts Vishnu Purana, Shrimad Bhagvat Purana and numerous other works exalt Ayodhya as among the most sacred of pilgrimages?

• Political theme: Apart from finding sex of the kinky variety in every word in every work on Hinduism, the predominant concern of Ms Doniger seems to  be centered around ensuring deepening fissures and divisions in the Hindu scoeity. Her insistence on projecting works as that of Brahmins, of Kshatriyas, of Shudras, of Dalits and of women, as belonging to mutually antagonistic schools leaves one deeply discomfited with her agenda. A perusal of her footnotes and indexes will reveal instances where she has quoted a single work numerous times but  has given an impression of those being distinct works by different author. Eg – 'A Dalit woman writer states… ' The next line talks of another dalit woman commenting on the same topic and the footnotes reveal both the references from the same book by a single woman author! While she has liberally referred from the likes of Ms Romila Thapar, DN Jha, KN Pannikkar and other Marxists, she has missed out on works from Jadunath Sarkar, RK Mukherjee, scholars like Neelkanth Shastri or any other historian from the objective school. For that matter, she finds Col Todd’s works on Rajputs problematic for it presents the Muslim-Rajput wars as those in between the foreign barbaric invaders and the native invaded. Forget about distant history – she attributes Mahatma Gandhi as having uttered ‘Ram-Rahim’ as he was dying!

It is unfortunate that Prof Doniger enjoys the respect she does in hallowed portals of Indic studies. One would expect that a person studying a religion other than one’s own, that too as a scholar, would be attracted by the positives of that religion, without of course, allowing that appreciation to cloud one’s scholarly judgment. However, Ms Doinger’s interest in Hinduism seems to stem from intentions more ignoble. What makes the likes of Ms Doniger more damaging is the reality that her (alongwith her cabal’s) interpretation of Hinduism is slowly but steadily displacing the mainstream understanding of Hinduism as we know, from academic shelves and from belonging to the fringe, her interpretations run the risk of becoming mainstream. Just imagine someone not exposed to epics and puranas forming an understanding of Hinduism basis the works of Ms Doniger. Will that person be in wrong if his/her impression of Hinduism is of an oppressive religion which is not even a religion but a hodge-podge of libertine behavior and shallow rituals? It is very well to point out that the Shiv Linga is what is seems like – a phallic representation. At the same time, the import of that manifestation cannot be left out to the eroticized alone. It will be like pointing out that the Christian worship of the Cross is merely adoration and veneration of a human corpse hung on a crucifix.

Solutions galore on Ayodhya?

A darshan of Ramlalla at the makeshift temple at Ayodhya early this week was an event which I had been looking forward to ever since I had become aware of the struggle for construction of the temple at Ayodhya. While a complete identification with the zeal of Kar Sevaks of those decades is beyond me, I could only wonder on how could lakhs of Kar Sevaks manage to cram themselves in those narrow alleys of Ayodhya and attack the disputed shrine in midst of that heavy security bandobast! No wonder that the aggrieved community holds the PV Narasimha Rao responsible for the events of December 6, 1992.

The struggle for liberation of the shrine or construction of the Ram temple, depending on the way you look at it, has been an old one with 1949, 1986 and 1992, in the modern era, being watershed years. People involved with the issue were looking forward to the judgement of Lucknow High Court, if for nothing, as at least a step forward. Hence, the Supreme Court decision to defer the HC judgment has come as quite a dampener. It is inexplicable that the Honorable SC has decided to defer the judgement when by no stretch of imagination, could a decision on a 60 year old litigation process be seen as hasty or ill-thought. Likewise, the fear of adverse impact on Law & Order is inexcusable as even a fig leaf to cover governance shortcomings. More so, when the Courts adjudicate on the basis on facts and the law, governance being beyond their sphere of activities!

It is quite fashionable to oft-quote that the citizens of Ayodhya were and are aloof from the temple movement or that there is no sympathy of the construction of the temple any longer. Such assertions ignore the facts that most Kar Sevaks were lodged in houses of residents time and again and that the demolition of the disputed structure resulted in Diwali being celebrated at Ayodhya. Yet again, believing that support for the temple has waned would be mistaking trees for the woods. While there is no doubt that support for the parties who led the temple movement has waned considerably and all of them are bereft of any credibility on the issue, the average person on street, in fields and in kitchens, does not desire that the temple be replaced by a mosque or some hospital.

A look on the intransigence of the leaders, who represent the Muslim populace on matters on faith, makes one wonder whether these leaders are only interested in furthering their own careers or whether more ominously, their rigidity has something to do with the religious beliefs they profess. The controversy over the proposed Islamic Centre near the site of the destroyed World Trade Center has only served to harden the negative perception about Islamists. The proponents of the Mosque have done no service to their ostensible aim of promoting an understanding of Islam among others by their bull headed insistence on having the centre at that precise spot, something which is an anathema to a vast majority of Americans. In the case of Ayodhya, the dispute is in between a regular mosque and the Hindu efforts to reclaim the right to worship God where he was born in human form. Even if we dignify attempts to question the historicity and divinity of Rama, the point beyond doubt is that the spot where the makeshift temple stands today is considered especially sacred by vast multitudes of Hindus while the mosque in question held no such significance for Muslims.

Just imagine the wonders it would do to the standing of Muslim community in India if they voluntarily forego their claim to the mosque. Not only would such an act deflate anti Muslim propaganda of the more rabid Nationalists, it will completely take the wind off demands for restoration of the shrines at Mathura and Kashi. However, not only have these leaders failed to rise to the occasion, their fanatical supporters in the governance and chattering classes have only served to act as an hindrance to any potential settlement of the issue. Don’t they realise that the act of ‘giving away’ the site would only result in even more pampering of the ‘oppressed’ and ‘marginalized’ Muslims and rather than only a few Nadias and Degangas, they will be allowed free run of the entire country, on strength of their ‘sacrifice’? The ‘secular’ champions of all causes Islamic may take care to go back to the Hubli Idgah case and do well remember that the laws don’t follow secular theology all the time and Islamic claims can be thrown out by the courts. Another favorite ‘solution’ offered by these champions is the construction of both the temple and mosque side by side. This is not going to resolve the problem – Kashi and Mathura are a living testimony to the same. Suggesting building a school / hospital or a urinal (aka Mahesh Bhatt) is trivializing the issue, not even worth a serious debate.

The phase of struggle for the temple, witnessed in the previous century got entwined with the larger Indian yearning for a change from the effete Governments of the day and propelled the BJP to the centre-stage. Sadly, while the ruler changed, the regime did not and we continued to have more of the same in various forms.

I do not know if the makeshift temple would ever be replaced by a magnificent temple dedicated to Shri Ram on the site, the liberation of which has been the cause for countless martyrs over the centuries. Perhaps the temple has to wait, either for Muslim magnanimity or for another sustained phase of struggle for there cannot be any solution to the issue other than temple at that spot!

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