Lokpal - An end?

After raising high hopes, the great Indian middle class disappointed again in ensuring that the agitation of the Lokpal becomes a punctured balloon.

True, Anna Hazare and his team stands diminished. Diminished because the people, who they claimed to represent, foresook them and diminished because they did not have grace to accept that the absence of the common supporter did indicate that they had faltered somewhere. If crowds were indicator of their support than it goes that absence of crowd means absent or weak support.

Amazing is the level of glee which is seen on the face of many who had supported Anna. Amazing because while this glee was much expected from the media moguls and the chattering classes, one wonders what makes his erstwhile supporters feel happy that Anna was defeated by those who made him lead them.

Today, it is fashionable to criticize him as per one's own proclivity, but lest one forget, there was hardly any occasion, where the Mahatma himself escaped criticism, many a times from his own closest supporters. While one can fault Anna on numerous things, even on how his movement appropriated a more critical movement against Black Money, but still, his defeat is the defeat of us all, who wanted a clean Government for us and our generations to come.

What was his fault? That he wanted a simple, powerful law to nail the corrupt? Guess, reason enough for him to have been virtually killed by his followers.

Retail FDI: Why can’t we get over hyperbole?

After having successfully deflected the opposition’s gunfire from corruption & inflation to FDI retail, the Manmohan Singh led Central Govt has backtracked and the decision to open multi brand retail to FDI seems to have been put in cold storage for now.

While the entire saga of events did highlight the fissures within the UPA on key decision making processes, the fiasco may have resulted in retail now being anointed as one of India’s very many holy cows and may thus not be subjected to critical reforms anytime soon. However sad or welcome the rollback decision might have been, one is certainly stuck by the contrast between Government and opposition claims on what FDI in retail would do.

At one end, the Government spin masters claimed that FDI in retail would do what Governments in the last 70 years could not, i.e., make farmers rich, make consumers benefit, generate employment, create infrastructure and what not, the opposition and the varied opinion makers in the opposite camps were equally vehement in their claims that FDI in this sector would bring India precipitously close to where it was the early 18^th century. If only, if only, either of these claims were even partially true.

It will not be unjust to disdainfully dismiss the Congress’s fanciful claims. Even if we were to discount the oft repeated opposition claim of Walmart’s 2.1 million employment vs India’s 40 million employment for the same turnover, it is clear from an observation of current Indian supermarket chains that a consolidated store shall be more efficient and employ lesser number of people. Even otherwise, the chaotic and disorganized Indian Retail sector is virtually like a cottage Industry and anyone with even a little knowledge of economics would know that efficient processes eliminate manpower requirements, not enhance them. So, it is likely that only a fraction of people who are engaged as employees in retail stores now will end up as employees of the MNCs. And if we eliminate the presence of the so called middlemen from the value chain, that would mean that even these people will be without vocations / jobs and only add to the number of unemployed. Where does the additional employment get generated then? 

A counter argument could be the need for employment in back end operations. If that be, it would only be a partial filling of open jobs and will to some extent, defeat one of the motivators for reforms, i.e., control of overheads / middlemen commission.

Even otherwise, whatever we see now does not support the contention of Retail chains being more beneficial for customers. Let me take the example of the Retail chain where I’ve doing the bulk of my grocery shopping for the last 4 years. This chain offers vegetables, fruits and grains, at similar or higher prices compared to your regular mom and pop store. Interestingly, many a times I’ve noticed that the fruits sold by the chain are not so fresh and more expensive than those being sold by the hawker, the last – last link in the very inefficient supply chain these retailers want to replace. Only a couple of years back, when retail onion / potato prices were going through the roof (even as wholesale prices remained in control), this chain, with all its efficient supply chain was selling at almost the same price as was being sold by other local retailers. The moot question as to why I continue to shop with them – the convenience, if you have to shop in bulk and the service.

Many a times, it is quoted that barely 40% of Indian produce is stored. So? What does it mean or should it necessarily mean something? A large bulk of our produce is through small farmers (self sustenance) and consumed in a hinterland of a 100 mile radius. Is it really a wonder that we don’t have that much of surplus which is to be stored. Of course, we have years when a potatoes/ tomatoes get produced much more than what they can be stored. But how is this occasional problem served by entry of large foreign retail chains?

At the same time, it is a fallacy to expect that foreign retail chains will kill the domestic retail industry. For one, the sheer spread of India and the local economics won’t allow percolation of such retail chains in all urban agglomerations, leave aside the small towns which dot India. Further, even in cities, a Wal Mart will certainly cause many to down shutters but still allow many to sustain business. With the type of demographics which comprise a large majority of our cities, it is difficult to see Walmarts / Tescos completely replacing your neighborhood stores which offer you products on credit and in very small quantities, at anytime of the day.

More critically, it is not foreign businesses which kill retail businesses alone. Larger retail chains have impacted independent stores where they have come up. If we don’t have an issue with internal competition, then what is so bad about external competition? Even here, before I’m accused of being an agent of the East India Company, let me clarify that India has had MNCs dominating in the most basic of spaces for decades now, without it being any poorer. Very basically, compared to the colonial days, where wealth was simply transferred overseas, in today’s MNC model, the assets and even profit ploughback mostly remains in the land of operations. One can legitimately ask if the profits ‘ploughed-back’ by Unilever to its HO are material enough for us to visualize a scenario of drain of wealth?

Like any other facet of the economy, FDI in retail has its own pros and cons and need to be judged simply on that. Let us please be spared the sight and sound of both Government hyperventilating on how it will ‘move farmers out of poverty’ (sic) and quoting some fantastically fantastic figures and the opposition beating its breast on sellout of India, once again!

Kitne Ramayan?

The decision of Delhi University to withdraw the essay ‘300 Ramayans’ from the list of prescribed history texts have yet again raised the hackles of many, who see the act as succumbing to the rabid right wing, hell bent on shoving down the myth of one people, one culture, to us diverse Indians.

Interestingly, the same people who otherwise had no sympathy to folk tales and traditions are swearing by their multiplicity and insist that those telling, writings, tales are equally, if not more, important than the Upper Casteist Valmiki Ramayana.

A side thread to this contrived fracas is the upliftment of the late author AK Ramanujan’s profile. While Ramanujan, who died in 1993, had made his career as a translator of works on Indian literature and culture for an American audience, the controversy has ensured that the defenders of plurality now hail this scholar – translator as the best thing to have happened to Indian culture, a litterateur par excellence, with some wires calling him an acclaimed historian!

Leaving the credentials of Ramanujan behind, while some apologists have claimed that Ramanujan deeply revered Ramayana, Ramanujan was a declared atheist. Even his relatively celebrated poem on the demise of River Vaigai dwelt on the socioeconomic importance of the River for Madurai rather than its religious significance.  The essay itself begins by introducing Hanuman as Rama’s henchman, something which is not used to denote the position of even the slave Bilal, to Muhammad, the Prophet.

Even if we disregard AKR’s intents as being immaterial to the present controversy, one cannot be indifferent to the impropriety of this essay being part of the History curriculum. 

Beginning with a relatively minor point on Ramayana itself being part of the History curriculum. While for us believers, there may nothing be out of place in reading essays on our epics as a part of History, it is indeed surprising that the brigades who have shrilly denounced these very epics as myths, now more shrilly declare their support for this essay as a part of history! Since when did a myth become history for these people?

Coming to the more important point of there being no original Ramayana: Valmiki has been introduced in our cultural records as being the first poet with the introductory lines of the Ramayana being the first poem and the Ramayana being the Adi-Grantha. While there have been numerous poets who have retold Rama’s story in their own tongues, all of them have singularly paid homage to Valmiki and most critically, none of them have claimed to be the Drishta, (one who saw as things were). Valmiki was the contemporary of Rama while others could only claim to be blessed with His divine Grace. So much so for the absence of original!

Different creations have different sensibilities. Well, none of them have Rama kidnapping Mandodari and Ravana attacking Ayodhya to save her! Of course, narratives and subtle details have changed. The story of Shabari’s berries, who we all delight in, wasn’t simply there in Valmiki’s Ramayana, having been introduced later in Padma Purana. Likewise, the story of Ahalya has been treated differently at different times. The base facts remain the same, Gautama cursed Ahalya and she was salvaged by His Grace. But the difference lies in presumption of her guilt. While in one version, Sita was simply kidnapped, in another version, she was not touched but taken with the soil beneath her feet while one other says that it was not Sita but her shadow which was kidnapped. But all of them do say that Sita was kidnapped. Otherwise, while Valmiki treated Rama as a super human with divine qualities, Tulsidas clearly saw Rama as God himself. 

The moot point is that while poets over the ages altered and embellished the narrative basis their own sensibilities and the prevailing social mores, the broad facts of the Ramayana remained the same. And rather than some obscure tribe having its own Sitayana, it was Valmiki himself who declares in his Ramayana, that the tale should have been more aptly named Sitayana.

Funnily, when there is so much congruence in the telling, the author seems to have concentrated on the divergences. So much so for those who proclaim: ‘We must learn to include rather than to exclude’.

While the well-meaning may really want to search for unity in diversity, the attempt to showcase fringe and obscure tellings as equivalent to the prime telling cannot be anything but mischievous. To say that Sita was Rama’s sister and that this version of the tale is as important as the works of Valmiki, Tulsi or Kamban is ridiculous and should be dismissed as a juvenile attempt to befool people. It is no accident that at their height of Ram Janmabhoomi Liberation Movement, the Marxist SAHMAT, wanted to hold enactments of the play ‘Kitne Ramayan’ across cities and towns in Uttar Pradesh. The motive of SAHMAT was not to educate the Indian populace on the plurality of Indian culture, it was simply to attack the premise of Rama as God. After all, seeing those Ramayanas, where Sita was Rama’s sister or Ravana’s wife or Lakshmana’s paramour, treated at par with the Manas or Ramayana could not have strengthened the faith of the common man in his God. 

Granted that there are numerous tellings of the Ramayana but each of them, written with belief in the God King has its base facts the same. Adherents to each of these versions are most of the time blissfully unaware that there are subtle differences in texts being followed and worshipped in other parts of the country or the country. Go to any part of India and within a 100 km radius, you will find a place where either Sita-Ram or the Pandavas are believed to have visited in course of their forest stay. Is it than any wonder that each part of the country has its own set of folk tales associated with Rama? Only, each of these people revere both the tale unlike what our progressives do.

For those who would claim that the beliefs are not that fragile to be shaken by a mere essay, should remember that over the centuries, singular texts have changed the course of religion – an outstanding poem Geeta Govinda became the cornerstone for worship at Krishna temples and the movie Jai Santoshi Maa, gave huge impetus to the worship of the Goddess all across North India. One would not be accused of hyperbole if he claims that introduction of such essays as prescribed texts, would only serve to further the secular agenda of questioning and weakening the position of Rama and Ramayana in the Hindu psyche. Of course, the Thai and Balinese versions treat Ramayana more differently. Thankfully, for them too, Rama and not Ravana is the God. More importantly yet again, like most of my fellow countrymen are oblivious of the Thai Ramayana, the common Thai believes that her Ramkien (of the 3 existing tellings) is her land's own tale, of her own Ayuthya and is not aware of any Indian Ramayana. That there are many tellings of Rama's story is not something which has been unknown to the devout, so why this sensationalism? Till the time these re-tellings are meant for and discussed with devotion, no one shall have any problem with any version. After all:

हरी अनंत हरी कथा अनंता, कही सुनाही बहु विधि सब संता (God is Infinte. So is His story. The pious speak and listen (to His story) in many different ways)

No University in its right mind anywhere in the world will use a text which talks about the life of Muhammad with reference to Rangila Rasool nor will it declare 'The Da Vinci Code' as a scholarly work. If these fringe works are treated for what they are, why should we Indians be apologetic about our prime cultural mores and look for authentication certificates for our beliefs and our tales from others, more so, from those Indians who write for foreign audiences? So why should we start bothering and questioning our epic simply because AKR or some other person for that matter decided to compare, say, Nina Paley's 'work' with the Valmiki Ramayana and claimed that it was the 301st Ramayana?

Na-Re Modi

That Modi is a polarizing figure is a self evident truth. What is not so clear is the reason this man has been demonized so much. Gujarat has had a history of ghastly communal riots and the carnage of 2002 still pales when compared to the 1969 Ahmedabad riots which were triggered by massacre of cows and temple priest’s alongwith attack on Rath Yatra. Even otherwise, more than a quarter of casualties in the riots were Hindus, clearly indicating that it was far, far from a much abused word ‘pogrom’ and with due respect to the unfortunate dead, our intelligentsia should study Rwanda, Cambodia, Yugoslavia or our own medieval and modern history (partition) to understand what the genocide or a pogrom means.

Still, the image of Modi as the ‘Hindu Hriday Samrat’ was justified to the extent that he was aggressive with regards to the cause of the riots and even otherwise, the aggressive campaign of the NGO –ECI brigade resulted in a consolidation of Nationalist forces behind Modi, so much so that even the Congress did not fight the election on the plank of riots. Very soon, however, it became amply clear that Modi had little sympathies for Hindutva, in spite of his life long career in the RSS. Not only were the VHP office bearers marginalized, very soon, people started finding themselves behind bars in riot related cases. Not only were the likes of Keshubhai Patel and Rana pushed to margins, erstwhile foot soldiers like Gordhan Zadaphia became sworn enemies of Modi. Modi’s impatience with a Hindutva agenda became all the more clear when, on his orders, municipal authorities demolished scores of temples but left mosques and dargahs untouched, after outbreak of Muslim violence in Vadodara. It is indeed a miracle, that the VHP, which had active units in each of Gujarat’s 10,000 odd towns and villages till a decade back, seems like a spent force today.

Yet, in spite of having marginalized the RSS and its affiliates, including the powerful Bharatiya Kisan Sangh, Modi won a spectacular mandate once again in 2007. This mandate indicated that the mass’s adoration of Modi had moved beyond his macho image to his development mantra. Today, with almost everyone signing paeans to Modi’s commitment to development, it would be churlish to deny that Modi has emerged as a formidable champion of developmental politics. To say that Gujaratis’ have always been industrious and that Modi has no role to play in development simply indicates an envious mindset for if nothing else, the ever-conscious of profits Gujarati would be more aware than you and me if Modi had indeed made a difference to their pursuit of prosperity.

Interestingly, in we look at the 2007 elections dispassionately, we will find that the elections were considered tough for him on account of the strident anti Modi position taken by the VHP, formation of the rebel BJP, by the dissents led by Gordhan Zadaphia and the presence of Uma Bharti’s Lok Janshakti, which managed to attract a significant number of sitting MLAs as candidates for the coming polls. However, as elections neared, Ashok Singhal declared that he had no differences with Modi and said VHP would campaign for Hindutva leaning candidates, Uma Bharti withdrew her candidates (though some still fought as independents) and silently, the RSS volunteers campaigned for Modi and Modi alone. Why did it happen? After suffering marginalization and insults for 4 years, it was probably a right time for the Sangh to show Modi that the latter was not indispensable and his dreams of ruling Gujarat hinged on the support of those he had been dismissing as the rustic cousins. However, nothing of this sort happened and Modi was blessed with Sangh support yet again. In all likelihood, the Sangh would have calculated that for a party demoralized with loss of power in 2004 General Elections and facing ideological confusion post Advani’s attempts to turn secular, the loss of Gujarat would have been a body blow to the morale of its activists. Maybe, there was some other commitment of Modi to ‘mend’ his way which became the deciding factor for Sangh to throw its weight behind the son who had wandered, rather than attempting a ‘cutting the nose to spite the face’ act.

To be fair to Modi, while the RSS, the VHP and numerous other Sangh Parivar affiliates continue to be marginalized in Gujarat, there had not been any open confrontation between his Government and others. That an open dissident like Dr Kanubhai Kalsaria still continues as a BJP MLA, probably would indicate that some sort of arrangement between Modi and the Sangh had been in place.

However, Modi’s antics in the last few weeks seem to indicate the limitations of such truces. Frankly, for an ambitious man like Modi, anything less than the Prime Ministership would be an affront to his own perception of his capabilities and indispensability and like his one time mentor LK Advani, Modi has attempted to turn a new leaf and be seen as a moderate, capable of winning acceptability from all sections of society. While this may or this may not fit in the Sangh’s scheme of things, which pushed the arch moderate Vajpayee to the center stage when he had been languishing on the margins for years, knowing well his proclivity to moderation, what certainly may not fit the Sangh’s worldview is his open defiance of the BJP Leadership. Ironically, it Modi becomes aggressively intolerant of the Sangh and more open in his defiance, he may still achieve what his Sadbhavna fast failed to – endorsement of the chattering classes. 

The media would like us to believe that Modi is immensely popular among the cadre while having limited appeal to voters outside Gujarat. While the latter may be true, considering that the BJP’s performance hasn’t really peaked where he campaigned, one wonders if the cadres will really be as enamored of Modi if more and more of them become aware that the Hindu Nationalist Modi took birth and died in 2002. The Modi we have today would probably be closest to a refined male version of Mrs Indira Gandhi – insecure, scheming, autocratic but resolute and strong – seen as a leader who delivers! For a Nation plagued with vapid leaders, a strong leader has its attractions. At the same time, one cannot discount the fact that for all her positive contributions, Indira stands heads and shoulders above all others in having succeeded in subverting the system and compromising our Constitution. Yet, for all her faults, Indira did not ditch the people she claimed she stood for. Till the very end, she remained steadfast to the people who stood by her and for those who stood for her. Here in Modi, we may be faced with a leader who cares little for those who adore him and certainly one, who has left those behind who stood for him, when it mattered the most.

Trojan in Trap

The now forgotten Mitrokhin Archives had a small chapter devoted to India where in one of the notes, the Soviet Communist Party has expressed its satisfaction that the Communist Party of India, following its instructions, had allowed its members to join the Congress (I) at various levels of leadership. This happened for the Communists realized the impracticality of their coming to power in India, either through ballot or through bullet and settled for the next best – ensuring the rule of their ideology through influence. 

While this infiltration lasted from the mid sixties to the mid seventies, it had its reflection in a curious event occurring in the mid 90s’. It would seem that the Communists, unable to bring themselves to infiltrate the BJP on account of their visceral hatred for the reactionary right, settled for the 3^rd best – installing a Trojan Horse in the party to destroy it from within.

A cursory look at the career of Sudheendra Kulkarni would indicate that he managed to do just about that – the man who can claim disproportionate credit for the ghastly ‘India Shining’ campaign and more importantly, shaking the ideological roots of the party with his design of its architect’s LK Advani’s ‘Jinnah…my homage to a Great man.’ comments. What Kulkarni managed to do in his short stint with the BJP is enviable by any standards. Not only did he become a close confidante of AB Vajpayee, he managed to win the ultimate confidence of Advani too, something which very few leaders in the BJP had managed.  A measure to his influence could be assessed from the fact that within 2 years of his joining the BJP (he joined the party in 1996); the party managed to set aside its ideological moorings (1998 elections) and jettisoned it completely in the next 6 years (2004 elections). It is a wonder that a man as erudite and intellectual as Advani could allow himself to be influenced by Kulkarni, so much so that the architect of the modern Indian polity, had no second thoughts in disowning the baby he had reared. 

Of course, with the disaster of 2009, Kulkarni had to quit the BJP in disgrace. This quitting however, in no way meant that the man was out of favor of his mentor Advani. Advani made it a point to defend him time and again and it is a matter of time before Kulkarni is brought back to the BJP with full honors intact.

If one wonders as to why a seemingly lightweight like Kulkarni is being given so much of space today, it is all courtesy the mis-adventure of cash for votes sting operation. While the arrest of the 2 BJP ex MPs, Suhail Hindustani and Kulkarni do seem like a travesty of justice and must be condemned, one wonders whether Kulkarni had contrived the failure of this sting right from the beginning.

For one – the partner chosen for the sting was IBN-Live, whose owners Rajdeep Sardesai et al, form a part of the Sonia fan brigade, a channel which never even attempted to hide its sympathies for the Congress and abhorrence of the BJP and the one which led the cacophonous cry of (alongwith NDTV) ‘Singh is King’ when Manmohan ‘Integrity’ Singh won the vote of confidence. How could a rational person even imagine that the views channel would do anything which would besmirch the reputation of the spotlessly clean UPA Government? It happened what had to happen – the sting was not aired and when aired after a considerable gap, it was a mild edited version of the entire operation. BJP pretended to boycott the channel for sometime and soon, the boycott too was forgotten.

Second – Neither Advani, nor the BJP made a big deal over the tainted vote of confidence or the scam. While it is understood that the man of impeccable integrity, Somnath Chatterjee, counted all votes cast as valid (even though the Anti Defection Act declares such votes as invalid), what is not understandable is the BJP’s silence post that. Except for asking for disqualification of the defecting MPs, the BJP did not challenge the speaker’s decisions, neither in the Parliament nor in the Court of Law. Further, the BJP did not make it an election campaign either. No Sir, no squeak on the ‘spotless’ Prime Minister winning his trust vote on the basis on damned lies and corrupt practices.

After a gap of 3 years, the still born investigation in the cash-for-votes scam was given a breath of life by the Supreme Court. But in yet another inexplicable turn of events, the Court has dissociated itself with monitoring of the case and we have a situation where the perpetrators of the crime are roaming free, not even having been named, leaved aside being questioned and imprisoned, the scam-busters are behind bars.

For those trying to paint a nuanced picture of the BJP wallahs being entrappers and not a sting operator, let them go back to the procedures adapted by the anti corruption bureau. People are caught red-handed while accepting bribes, traps for which are set by the agency itself. Or let us go back to the Left and Congress celebrated stings conducted by Tehelka. Right from Bangaru Laxman to Dileep Singh Judeo to Gujarat riots to cash for questions, traps were sprung. Nowhere did it happen that the accused had themselves sought out the scambusters and asked for bribes / shared information – so how different is the cash for votes sting conducted by the BJP that it be condemned. Of course, Tehelka being owned by the son of a senior Congress leader from Punjab, the former’s condemnation of the BJP sponsored sting is understandable. What is not understandable is the willing suspension of reason and plain indifference from the relatively more neutral and right thinking of our not-so-civil society.

Maybe and remotely maybe, our indifference to the UPA shenanigans and the plight of Kulkarni flows from our sub-conscious realization that the sting did not flow from an honest intent. Even otherwise, a few days in Tihar pale in comparison his monumental sin of having irreparably compromised the father figure of modern Indian Nationalism.

Promotion of Communal Violence Bill

Centuries ago, by the time Islamic Sultanates had managed to exercise their supremacy over Gangetic India, there arose a peculiar conflict – of bands of sanyasis being beaten and robbed by bands of fakirs. If one wonders on what made these fakirs act so violently towards sanyasis, the answer lies in three basic facts:

·      Fakirs were considered above the law on most matters

·      With the imposition of Jaziya on Hindu lands, carrying arms had become the sole prerogative of Muslims, with the only exceptions being Hindu noblemen / warriors being in direct service to the emperor

·      Crimes by Muslims against the kaffirs carried little censure as compared to crimes by Muslims against fellow Muslims and worse, crimes by Hindus against Muslims

Anyways, the drift continued for a couple of centuries only being broken in phases where the Muslim rule weakened. However, with the consolidation of Akbar’s rule, jaziya was first temporarily and then permanently removed and Akbar, on representation by various sanyasi orders, allowed them to carry arms and act in self defense. Very soon, the Sanyasis found themselves on surer footing compared to fakirs and we had more militant sanyasi orders coming into being. Things, of course, took a worse turn for sanyasis with the rule of Aurangzeb when the fakir order became bolder again but soon again, the rise of multiple revolts through the country weakened his Empire and the Mughal Empire was served a fatal body blow with the rise of Maratha Empire. 

And the impact of these changes – many sanyasi orders became equivalent to a band of brigands, collecting taxes from villages and zamindars in their area of operations and many a times, liquidating competing bands of sanyasis and fakirs. These sanyasi bands had become so powerful that even during the oppressive Islamic rule in Bengal, their writ run over large areas and later, the East India Company had had to fight pitched battles to get rid of the marauding bands.

But how are events which happened over the last few centuries relevant to us now? Plainly, because it reinforces the fading reality that without the fear of law, even the most humble and meek creatures can turn into bloodthirsty marauders. Had the fakirs been under the pale of law, the sanyasis, in most likelihood, would have continued to be away from acts of retributive violence. Likewise, if the sanyasis had been adequately controlled by local kings, it is unlikely that they would have turned to medieval version of local warlords.

Today, we are faced with the prospect of being thrust with a legislation, which will ensure that the identified ‘minority’ communities will be above the law while any act of the majority, which can even remotely be construed as damaging to the identified minority.

And who is this minority? Minority in a state – meaning Hindus and Buddhists in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, Muslims in all other states of the country and probably Christians in all states of the country other than the North Eastern states of Nagaland, Mizoram and Meghalaya. Even here, it is to the discretion of Jammu & Kashmir assembly if they do indeed decide to extend the law to the state.

Rather than delve into the point of weakening of the federal structure of our country on account of this legislation, let us only concentrate on the banality of assumptions which has moved the NAC driven UPA Government to introduce such legislation.

Assumption 1: The legislation assumes that minorities are minorities through the entire geographical / demographical area of the state and hence are always weak.  

Reality: Each state may have districts where the minority is in a majority, i.e., Malappuram and Manjeri in Kerala, Nagercoil in Tamil Nadu, Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh, Malegaon in Maharashtra, Murshidabad and Malda in West Bengal, Dhubri and Barpeta in Assam, Kishanganj and Purnea in Bihar, Rampur in Uttar Pradesh and so on. Likewise, if not in districts, many states have parliamentary and assembly constituencies where the minority is in a majority or towns / cities where this phenomenon can be observed. Further, each town has at least one locality where the so called minority is a majority. If we leave aside the question of base majority/minority, we have whole regions like Western UP, North Bihar, Lower Assam, Gangetic Bengal etc where the so called minority is around 40%-45% of the total population. If the Act defines minority at the macro level, should it not go deeper and define minority in a fairer and more relevant micro level.

Assumption 2: Numbers alone mean domination.

Reality: if the assumption were true, a handful of colonizers from Europe would not have ruled the world, 300 strong Muslim army would not have won the Battle of Badr, nor would Babur have won Panipat and Plassey would have seen Siraj-ud-daula victorious. A determined, organized and well resourced group with a definite goal is way more powerful that an larger group of vacuous and disparate individuals. It is not for nothing that one says, ‘Having One Lion in the army is better than having a million sheep’.

Assumption 3: It is always the minority which bears the brunt of the riots.

Reality: While this assumption is certainly true in countries like Bangladesh, which have only Hindu casualties whenever riots happen, one would be surprised to note that the so called majority community forms a disproportionately large proportion of the killed, hurt and displaced. Rather than delving too far into history, let us look at figures on riots in the last decade or so:

a.   Mumbai – 1993 - 575 Muslims and 275 Hindus (2:1)

b.   Malegaon – 2002 – 12 Muslims and 3 Hindus (4:1)

c.   Gujarat – 2004 – 794 Muslims and 254 Hindus (3:1)

d.   Marad – 2003 – 1 Muslim and 8 Hindus (1:8)

e.   Mau – 2005 – 2 Muslims and 10 Hindus (1:5)

f.     Aligarh – 2006 – 2 Muslims and 4 Hindus (1:2)

g.   Hyderabad – 2010 – 0 Muslims and 4 Hindus

h.   Deganga – 2010 – 0 mosques damaged and 4 temples burnt

In case riots are really one sided, one can wonder whether the number of dead from the ‘majority’ community means that they committed suicide only to give a bad name to the meek, peaceful minorities! And before anyone steps into point out that minority casualties are higher than the majority casualties in case of Bombay and Gujarat riots, one should account for the fact that normally an 80% strong majority would ensure that cent percent casualties are from the 20% minority or a the very most, a few collaterals in course of the one way blood bath. But one can see, reality is different. Higher number of Muslim casualties in Muslim dominated Malegaon was on account of police action on marauding mobs, yet again an indicator that better armed crowd can inflict more damage on a larger opposing mob.

Assumption 4: Riots are always instigated by the majority 

Reality: Majority of riots in the country have been instigated and led by the minorities. Even the arch liberal, Atal Bihari Vajpayee in his 1971 address to the Parliament, used home ministry data to buttress that point. But since 1971 is so last century – let us look at facts for the last 2 decades.

a.   Mumbai – 1993 – Destruction of Ganesh Idol in Bandra East

b.   Malegaon – 2002 – Procession protesting attack on Afghanistan turned violent

c.   Gujarat – 2004 – Godhra carnage

d.   Marad – 2003 – Unprovoked. Police inquiry pointed to a conspiracy to intimidate the Hindu ninority.

e.   Mau – 2005 – Attack on Ram Baraat procession

f.     Aligarh – 2006 – Attack on Bharat Milap procession

g.   Burhanpur – 2008 – Attack on Hanuman Rath

h.   Dhule – 2008 – Attack on Navratri Pandal

i.     Kandhamal – 2008 – Killing of Swami Laxmananand Saraswati

j.     Miraj – 2009 – Ganpati pandal depicting killing of Afzal Khan by Shivaji

k.   Bareilly – 2010 – Banned Tazia procession taken out through a prohibited route

l.     Hyderabad – 2010 – Removal of Hanuman Jayanti banners

m. Deganga 2010 – Unprovoked. Apparent Muslim anger at the upcoming Durga Puja celebrations

n.   Bharatpur – 2011 – Attack and arson on Gujjar homes following dispute on a public ground

Both the above lists can go on and on. 

All the right thinking citizens should ponder and evaluate if this proposed bill is indeed being driven by the noble intent of preventing communal violence? In its present form, the bill is certain to handle immunity from prosecution and retribution to a very organized, militant and belligerent ‘minority’ – which may not even be a minority in the true sense of the word.

The passage of this bill in its current form, where perpetrators and victims are defined by birth is the worst form of legal apartheid and can only lead to a situation where a cornered ‘majority’ may be forced to jettison its wavering belief in the intent and capability of its ruling classes to protect its basic rights to life and dignity.

Gandhi and Anna

Funnily enough, the same set of people who had accused of Anna Hazare’s team being mulishly unreasonable in their negotiations with the Central Government have rubbed their hands in glee when the fast ended, without any tangible goals being achieved. So, damned if I am unreasonable and more damned if I am reasonable!

While such comments are very well expected from the status quoists and blind supporters of the UPA Government, what is disappointing is the inability and more importantly, indifference of Team Anna to counter the allegations that Anna’s Satyagraha was non-Gandhian and went against basic tenets of Satyagraha.

Before we move to Gandhian Satyagraha, let us pause for a moment on the very Dharmic sounding term Satyagraha, or Truth Force. It is a tribute to the Gandhian genius that a concept which had no roots in any of the Dharmic traditions, being a gift of early Christianity in general and Celtic monks in particular, is recognized as Indian. Gandhi picked what he thought was doable in Indian context and gave truth-force an Indian imagery. While Gandhi did popularize Satyagraha, the concept is not his own and so the talk of x Satyagraha not being a copybook Satyagraha is at best mirthful. Satyagraha flows from one’s conviction on correctness of one’s belief. Hence the Satyagrahi is right in his/her own limited universe. But since few truths are absolute, any Satyagraha may indeed by countered by a contrary but equally valid Satyagraha. In this probable clash of Satyagrahis, it will be the strength of conviction of the individual that may triumph – not necessary the degree of ‘righteousness’ of the cause. Anyways, since Truth itself is not absolute, we don’t have any right to point fingers at Anna’s fast by way of calling it autocratic and the one stifling voices of dissent.  Anna fasted for his own convictions not for beliefs of an Arundhati or an Aruna Roy.

Yet again, we have been told that how Gandhi’s fasts were against the foreign occupier and never against Indian authority. Since Anna was fasting against a democratically elected Government, he was seen as going against the very grain of Satyagraha. However, a perusal of Gandhi’s numerous fasts would indicate that Gandhi fasted against his countrymen too and fasted even after independence. In fact, it was his fast to force the Central Government to pay Rs 55 Crores to Pakistan, that became the proverbial last straw, in Nathuram Godse’s words, and triggered his assassination. Truth force is directed against some act or some person who is believed to be morally in the wrong. So, Anna had every right to force an immoral and corrupt Government to listen to his diktat, by the way of his choosing.

Further, a careful study of Gandhi’s Satyagraha and in fact, all civil disobedience movements across the world, will indicate that such movements are successful more against one’s own, rather than the oppressors / colonial masters. None of Gandhi’s fasts / movements against the British were successful in the sense of achieving their stated goals. At the same time, his fasts against the Indians, be it Ahmedabad Mill Owners, the King of Rajkot, for security of Muslims in Kolkata in 1947 and the Pay Pakistan fast were all successful – not because Gandhi had a more valid or stronger moral case, they succeeded because people who were the target of those fasts cared for loved him, their Mahatma. 

People aware of the Gandhian struggle would be stuck by parallels in between the world famous Salt Satyagraha and the Anna fast at Ramleela Maidan. Testing them against a few parameters:

Seemingly Trivial Cause: Abolition of the Salt Tax and not some other larger cause of independence. Likewise, Anna took up Jan Lokpal, not the behemoth of corruption all together.

Apolitical: Except for Chakravarti Rajagopalachari, who led a now forgotten, parallel march on the East Coast, all other leading Congressmen, Patel and Nehru included, had reservations on the efficacy cause and had kept their distance from the Dandi March. It was only when the march captured the imagination of the world that it became a Congress movement. Similarly, political parties tried to clamber on to the anti-corruption bandwagon only when they realized the potency of the collective emotional upsurge Anna had created.

Media Role: The world press reported Gandhi’s march on a daily basis and was instrumental in making the world aware of India’s struggle for freedom from the foreign rule. Is it any wonder that the media, magnified in its presence on account of technology, played such a powerful role in spreading Anna’s message?

Elite snobbery and mass participation: The British Government was hardly unnerved by the prospect of salt tax law being broken. Same way, UPA was hardly bothered with the prospect of the fast of a 74 year old. Court scribes were asking aloud if this fast would generate the spectator interest equal to early April’s spectacle. Well, events certainly spun out of control in both instances. Salt Satygraha was a watershed in the term that it saw huge participation from the womenfolk, hitherto untouched by the Nationalist struggle. Anna’s fast, for all the contrary noises struck a chord with the Youth, who had been away from the political discourse since the Ayodhya and Mandal heydays. 

Violence: Contrary to popular perception, Satyagrahas were not always completely non-violent affairs. In course of the Salt Satyagraha, violence broke out in numerous places in Bengal and Bihar and even Gandhi, wiser after the flak received after withdrawing his movement over Chauri Chaura, declined to even condemn mob violence. Of course, since there weren’t mass incarcerations, chances of violence on those scales in Anna’s campaign were lower. Yet, the only instance of violence where some drunk youth clashed with police was shrilly denounced by the likes of shallow-as-usual Sagarika Ghose as the proof of fascists in Anna’s campaign!

Quasi Religious nature: Seculars may beat their hearts out but like Anna’s Satyagraha, the Salt Satyagraha too was heavy on Hindu imagery with Bhajans, havans, pujas and of course, cries of Vande Ma Taram!

Muslim participation: Get it straight- Muslims as a group, did not participate in the Salt Satyagraha. Muslim League opposed it and major imams / pirs (including the powerful pir of Manki Sharif) declared that they had nothing to do with it. While I would like to believe that the rants of Imam Bukhari comes from his being a pro-establishment person, even if his assertion was correct, level of Muslim participation in Anna’s Satyagraha would be no different from their indifference to the Salt Satyagraha. Regarding allegations of lack of Dalit and backward class participation, they are a little tough to swallow when you consider that these allegers - Udit Raj had little support outside the Akbar Road, while the likes of Kancha Illaiah are not even known to anyone outside the circle of habitual Hindu bashers. More critically, the middle class and the rural class are not upper castes alone but are predominantly OBCs with a good sprinkling of the lower classes (particularly in rural areas). And one had to move around Ramleela Maidan and Indian heartland to see for oneself the chord Anna had stuck.

Success: If success means achievement of the stated goals – both movements are unsuccessful. The salt law was not repealed nor do we have a Jan Lokpal. However, the Salt Satyagraha was epoch making in the sense that the scale of mass awareness and anger at the now seen as unjust British rule was instrumental in building a National consciousness. We may never have a Jan Lokpal the way Anna wants. It is however, beyond doubt that the energy unleashed by his fast can only do good to our quest for a clean polity.

Marxist Pop Historians like Ramchandra Guha have claimed that the relatively low public attendance at Ramleela Maidan indicated that people did not really support Anna and what we saw were magnified images of a small minority. As per the most liberal estimates quoted by Late Morarji Desai, not more than 5% of the Indian population actively participated in the National Independence Movement in their lifetime. Does that mean that 95% of people in India were against the independence movement or does support only mean coming to the streets and getting arrested? For that matter, none of the Central Governments in India have been elected on account of ever having won more than 50% of the popular vote and no General Election has seen a turnout higher than the range of mid-sixties. So, even if we take the upper extremes of both the popular vote (incidentally 48% by Congress (I) in 1984) and the voting percentage, we will still be left with a 33% overall mandate for the winning party. Does that mean that people oppose those Governments?

Professional dissenters and habitual attention seekers have tried to denounce Anna’s campaign for a better India in all possible ways. Rather than being stuck with questions on whether Anna supports Kashmiri Separatists or wants a ban on Cow Slaughter or whether he is an admirer or a sworn opponent of Narendra Modi, let us try to remember than he is fighting for his own conviction. There are a thousand causes and he cannot support all of them, however fashionable or desirable they might be. Till the time Anna or anyone for that matter displays sincerity in addressing a cause which is the same as or even identical to mine, even if our paths diverge otherwise, let us all say – ‘I am Anna’