Fight to Finish

‘Struggle’ is a peculiar Chinese invention combining intimidation, humiliation and sheer exhaustion. Briefly described, it is an intellectual gang-beating of one man by many, sometimes even thousands, in which the victim has no defense, even the truth…. The technique was a thing of utter simplicity: A fierce and pitiless crescendo of screams demanding that the victim confess, followed by raucous hoots of dissatisfaction with any answer he gave them… The Struggle was born in the thirties, when the communists first began making headway in great rural stretches of China. Developed over the years by trial and error, it became the standard technique of interrogating the landlords and their enemies who fell into the hands of rebellious peasants. There is a system and real rationale behind it all. The Communists were and remain very formalistic. A man must be made to confess before he is punished, even if his punishment has been decided beforehand. The captured landlord was pushed, shoved or carried to a handy open area and forced to kneel and bow his head as dozens or hundreds or thousands of peasants began surrounding him. Screamed at, insulted, slapped, spat upon, sometimes beaten, hopelessly confused and terrorized, no victim could hold out for long. ... There is never a time limit to a Struggle. It can go on indefinitely if the leaders of the game feel that not enough contrition has developed. .. a Struggle is rarely resolved quickly; that would be too easy. At the beginning, even if the victim tells the truth or grovellingly admits to any accusation hurled at him, his every word will be greeted with insults and shrieks of contradictions. … After three or four days the victim begins inventing sins he has never committed, hoping that an admission monstrous enough might win him a reprieve. After a week of Struggle, he is willing to go to any lengths. 

Source: Bao Ruo-wnag (Jean Pasgualini), Prisoner of Mao (New York, Penguin Books, 1976, 59)

.

Whatever ills may be attributed to our own liberal intelligentsia, they cannot be faulted on their commitment to the Red Book and their efforts to Indianise the war to dominate thinking prowess of a free Nation. Since India is a socialist democracy and not a ‘People’s’ Democracy, the way China is, there are of course, limits to what the leftists can do as far as replicating ‘Struggle’ in Indian context. Hence, while a physical ‘Struggle’ may not be feasible, a propaganda struggle is certainly within the realms of the doable. Like any struggle which requires an adversary and  foot soldiers to wage the war, the lines here too are clearly drawn – the feudal adversaries are those who can be called Nationalists, traditionalists, religious, law-abiding and those who believe in a culture defined way of life. The foot soldiers on the other hand are petty journalists, news anchors, ambitious politicians and their ilk – all guided by figures who may possess different backgrounds, but are brought together by their visceral hated of India.

In case such words seem out of place in our context and one may be moved to question if I am indeed talking about India, my request to the discerning observer would be to look around and judge for oneself, if the no-holds barred attack on Hindu Nationalism can qualify as anything less than a war fought with utmost application of Fascist principles.

The fact that the Indian Nation is a Hindu majority state cannot be wished away. Likewise, the fact that the majority of our population is religious and still retains its ties with its old cultural moorings is equally valid. That in times of struggle, people fall back upon religion and cultural totems for sustenance is another fact which social scientists of all hues will accept unquestioningly. Hence, it is not surprising that our Nation, with its tradition of deifying whatever it respects, considers the Land as a Divinity to be worshipped. Likewise, it shouldn’t surprise anyone to note that our freedom struggle was full of Hindu imagery and thoughts, right from Bankim Chandra to Gandhi. It was precisely this mooring to our cultural heritage that made independent India choose Sanskrit words and ancient motifs as its emblems and at the same time allowed Congressmen to associate with Nationalist organizations without guilt. 

However, things have changed and over the years and we now have a scenario where anything remotely associated to Hindu Religion or Culture is rabidly denounced as Communal. We have to bear witness to ridiculous scenes of icons being boycotted for hailing Narendra Modi’s model of development (though Modi is as away from being a Hindu Nationalist as possible), PILs being filed claiming dilution of Indian secularism when a bhoomi puja is conducted for commencing construction of High Court building, another crescendo of complaints that this secularism is compromised when mortal remains of a revered religious leader are draped in Indian tricolor, another controversy when the President professes her faith towards a religious sect - the list is endless and can go on and on.

It was not so long back that country was stuck by a series of bomb blasts. While none of the alleged perpetrators of these crimes have been punished till date, the entire investigative and judicial system seems to have zeroed in only on the so-called Hindu terror, which even if true, together has caused far lesser damage and casualties compared to even a single blast in Mumbai.

The entire state machinery, with able abetment of the press seems to have taken it upon itself to tar the RSS and associated Nationalist organizations with the polemical brush of communal terrorism. For a person to be declared an RSS wallah, it is enough to put a stop to his/her career, particularly if that person belongs to academia, performing fields, judiciary and bureaucracy. Since the pronouncements of all learned judges are not music to ears of our thought police, even as respected and upright judges as JS Verma and MN Venkatchalliah are today denounced for their ‘rightist’ leanings. While an AP Shah, whose only claim to fame is decriminalization of homosexuality, is feted as a progressive and right thinking judge, an erudite and thorough judge like Markendya Katju is dismissed as being sanctimonious and of donning  saffron behind his black robes.

One could imagine the furore it would have caused, had someone criticized the Nobel committee for having awarded the prize to Amartya Sen, solely on account of he being a leftist. Not surprisingly though, today’s vitiated atmosphere allows the Karnataka Governor to get away with a recommendation of not awarding a renowned literary figure only on account of his pro-Hindutva leanings. 

Works published by those scholars, who had in the past, spoken in support of the Ayodhya movement, are dismissed as communal rantings without even a cursory review, while dismissal of a noted danseuse from her official post is justified on account of her having sung in some function where some RSS leader was present. 

The closest this Nation has come to in organising mass movements in the last few years was around Anna Hazare’s fast for a Lokpal bill. Sadly, the fact that there was a Bharat Mata portrait, that Vande Ma Taram was chanted and that hawans were conducted, have proven to be proofs potent enough to have convinced our gullible friends that the entire event was stage managed by the RSS. What are these ‘secularists’ trying to convey? That any person who is a patriot is an RSS wallah or that the RSS has sole copyright over patriotism? Or more critically, is patriotism a vice or being religious and being moored to one's culture a taboo?

Are we far from that stage that mere whiff of association with our Gods, our temples and our forefathers, enough to cast aspersion on our commitment to democracy and civilization? Forget about us ever having a fresco of Rama in the Parliament or having Ganesha/Lakhsmi on our currency note, a re-evaluation of Gandhi will certainly show his to be a hardcore communalist.

While I may find lots of areas of improvement in RSS’s functioning, cannot deny that for good or bad, the RSS has occupied a banyan like presence in the sphere of Hindu Nationalism. Hence, any attack on the Hindu Right must necessarily mean an assault on the RSS and its associates. With allegations being thrown around thick and fast, it is but likely that even hardcore RSS supporters would find it more and more inconvenient to continue their association with the RSS. With the Government, Media and ‘civil society’ seemingly determined to finish off the RSS and the thought process which sustains it, it is likely that sometime in the near future, we may see a reappraisal of what happened in Tibet a few decades back.

These struggles were diabolically cruel criticism meetings where children were made to accuse their parents of imaginary crimes, where farmers were made to denounce and beat up their landlords; where pupils were made to degrade their teachers; where every shred of dignity in a person was torn to pieces by his people, his children and loved ones. Old lamas were made to have sex with prostitutes in public. And often, the accused was beaten, spat and urinated upon. Every act of degradation was heaped upon him – and it killed him in more ways than one. When someone was through in a thamzing session, no one ever spoke of him again. He was no martyr for the people, because the people had killed him. His death lay in the hands of those who honoured and remembered him; but in their guilt, the people tried to forget him and the shameful part they had played in his degradation. 

Source: Jamyang Norbu, Warriors of Tibet, 133) Warriors of Tibet: The Story of Aten and the Khampas' Fight for the Freedom of Their Country (originally titled Horseman in the Snow), Wisdom, 1987, Wisdom Pub

Anna jaise Hazaron ho?

Shri Anna Hazare’s fast, pressing for introduction of Jan Lokpal Bill has captured the imagination of the Nation and the entire political class has been shaken with the hype it has generated. The Government of India had to capitulate and prima facie, has accepted Anna’s demands. Even if nothing tangible comes out in form of an empowered Lokpal finally, the fast has certainly served to channelize the growing impatience of public with the state of affairs of our country. However, beyond the hype, it would do good to appreciate that the support which Anna drew was more on cyberspace and would-do-anything-for-eyeballs media rather than on ground. Even after 4 days of fast, the maximum crowd which Anna could draw up was around 6,000, a tiny number by any reckoning.

Without in any way belittling Anna’s efforts to clean the system, it is my humble submission that his right thinking supporters will do good to evaluate if righteousness of the larger cause is sufficient reason to ignore fallacies of the immediate cause around which campaign has been built.

While there cannot be any doubt that the Augean stables of corruption need to be cleaned, will the Jan Lokpal Bill model, as proposed by Hazare, really be a panacea to our ills? The model bill proposes a draconian authority that would be larger than any of the elected or nominated constitutional authorities. Looking at authorities like the Election Commission of India, while the Nation may owe a debt of gratitude to TN Sheshan, the havoc a Naveen Chawla like person could have wreaked, had he enjoyed powers like Sheshan did in his heydays, can only be imagined. Likewise, when we know that nomination to most august of bodies is only made by Government and that too from its preferred bunch of bureaucrats and retired judges, can it really be in the interest of larger society to have so powerful an individual to be at helm?

A more critical evaluation is required on the aspect of ‘civil society’ participation. Firstly, what exactly is civil society? Does it mean representatives from cross section of public or does it mean a group of people only with decidedly leftist leanings? If it means the latter, than automatically, at least one quarter of the entire Indian population, majority of the professional / middle classes and an entire thought process, is completely exluded. Even more critically, does it mean representation of people with dubious backgrounds and funding and even more dubious intentions? Who do we have in the name of this civil society today? A Teesta Setalvad who has had numerous strictures, a Cedric Prakash, who manufactures all sorts of lies, a Arundhati Roy, who berates the idea of India, the likes of Agnivesh, who has been expelled by his own ilk but goes around in saffron robes? Who or what has given the idea that a Nation run by a group of shady individuals, with even more shady funding and shadier intents, would be better than our politicians? As far as morals (or the lack of it), biases and thick skin are concerned, our ‘civil society’ members would put many a seasoned politicians to shame.

That said and in spite of the fact that I find Anna’s antidote to corruption woolly headed and impractical, it is sad that this well meaning personality is being subject to attack from the left, right and center. Politicians and columnists have sneeringly called for Anna to fight an election and many have accused him of subverting the constitution. His fast unto death has been denounced as blackmail and tactics undemocratic. While the left sees him as a stooge of the Hindu Nationalists, further certified by his apparent praise for Narendra Modi, the Right sees him being propped by the Congress to subvert Baba Ramdev’s own movement against corruption. Whatever the truth may be, one cannot deny that if the rulers of the day are insensitive, tools used to wake them out of their slumber cannot be of their choice. Had the rulers alone been final arbiters’ of dissent, social revolutions in any part of the world would not have happened, pre independence INC would have forever remained a party of prayers and petitions and Indira’s dictatorial rule would have continued unabated. Desperate times call for desperate measures and the state where India is in today, with the Nation sold to crony capitalists, the babus and the netas, there is little hope for the common middle class person if a well meaning individual is thus ridiculed!

No Mutinies for this Country

By its own stormy standards, Indian political scene has been quite sedate since the later half of the 1990s, particularly as far as agitational movements are concerned. Sure, we had two regime changes; in the form of NDA assuming power followed by a more unexpected UPA victory in 2004. However, unlike regime changes of 1977 and 1989, the BJP’s advent to power was calmer and wasn’t an immediate result of masses taking to the streets. The case of Congress’s victory in 2004 was probably as close to a bloodless coup as it could be, with the party having been gifted power, without it practically having had had to lift a finger. 

Some may disagree to the assertion that the last decade or so has been calm and point to numerous boycotts, parliament disruptions and petitions by the opposition and buttress their contention further by highlighting that the political faultlines were probably not as sharply drawn ever before. However, to equate parliamentary agitation and television studio debates with street level agitation would be to mistake the woods for the trees.  Certainly, verbal volleys in a studio cannot be equated to masses screaming and demonstrating in public spaces! 

One would wonder as to why has Indian politics, which has had a history of mass agitations for over a hundred years now, been slowly moving away from streets to studios. This movement becomes more inexplicable when one goes back to the genesis of Indian politics and realizes that other than serving as a mouthpiece to nascent Nationalist sentiments, the petition and prayer based approach of Gopal Krishna Gokhle and other notables did little to further India’s case for freedom. On the other hand, Tilak and Gandhi, whatever their success, did indeed transform our elitist struggle to a mass movement. Even post independence, be it the regional parties or the National level movements like the Navnirman and Ram Janmabhoomi, electoral success and impact greeted those who were willing to test themselves against police batons. 

Then why have the political parties, particularly those in the opposition, moved away from agitationist politics? Why don’t we see an outpouring of public anger on streets rather than continuously viewing meaningless maudlin debates on televisions? Could the reason be something as simple as increasing costs of public mobilization? But then haven’t the ‘rewards’ of power multiplied many times over? Or could the reason be the general public’s disenchantment with political movements. Could be and can we blame them? All those who they had supported were found acting the way their hated predecessors did. What use then to get out, shout slogans and have more of the same! Some other reasons which could partially explain lower levels of public involvement with politics would center around greater prosperity of the general public or more so – shift towards a service economy where the same middle class of Navnirnam and Ayodhya is worried about its limited leave and sullying of its service record. Another could be a rising class consciousness where rallies would invariably mean some degree of shoulder rubbing with the unwashed masses. And the crowning glory would certainly be the oft repeated shrill media mantra – ‘No place for shrillness’ in public debate any longer. Without doubt, rallies of over a lakh of participants belong to a different era. Forget about lakhs, even a 5,000 strong crowd is sufficient to warm cockles of the heart of even the most weather beaten politicos today. 

Has the world indeed changed and people do not care about processions or is there something more to it than what meets the eye? Is there something more selfish in the opposition’s obvious disinterest in running any sustained issue based campaign against the ruling party? Is it that there is some understanding between the rulers and the opposition wherein the opposition is a part of the ruling system, partaking a share of spoils of power? Indeed, there is little difference between the BJP and the Congress when in power, except for the hoary issue of ‘minority appeasement’. When both the parties have in their own ways, promoted crony capitalism and institutionalized Corporatocracy, how does it matter that much if one’s share of power is limited. 

Looking at India, one might be forgiven to believe that the country is ripe for a ‘Lotus Revolution’ of its own kind. This is a country where less than 100 families control around a third of the country’s GDP, where a vast majority of its people live on the edge, criminals abound among the law makers and law enforcers and there is an open loot of whatever goods are still designated as ‘public’. However, a people, fatalistic by nature, now further opiated by the thought of their impending greatness do not make the best of revolutionaries. India is no Tunisia, no Egypt and certainly not a East European country where masses come on street to demand a positive change. The closest we ever had to a mass movement of this nature was probably the Navnirman movement which tamely petered out once emergency was declared. If a broad based people’s movement, led by a towering immaculate leader could not succeed then, there is little reason why people would be willing to be on streets today. Yet again, even during those days, the general unrest left the South and North East virtually unaffected. Perhaps the sheer size and diversity of Indians will ensure that any movement will always have a local or at most a para-National nature.  So, while India may continue to have its million mutinies, there is never a danger to those who rule over more that a billion inhabitants of this land.

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.