The Dangers of Negationism

“The worst illiterate is the political illiterate. He hears nothing, sees nothing, takes no part in political life. He doesn't seem to know that the cost of living, the price of beans, of flour, of rent, of medicines, all depend on political decisions. He even prides himself on his political ignorance, sticks out his chest and says he hates politics. He doesn't know, the imbecile, that from his political non-participation comes the prostitute, the abandoned child, the robber, and, worst of all, corrupt officials, the lackeys of exploitative multinational corporations.”

Bertolt Brecht. 1898 – 1956, German poet, playwright, and theatre director

The survivors of most communal riots face an existential dilemma once situation gets ‘normalised’. Except for a handful who choose to migrate elsewhere, most are forced to continue on with their lives in their old localities, surrounded by the very people who had turned on them ferociously only a few days earlier. It is not always easy for the aggressor either to look into the eye of the survivor; particularly for those who otherwise had enjoyed congenial or even indifferent relations with the survivor. Not surprisingly, the ingenious human mind finds a way out and invariably, the rioters are declared to be ‘outsiders’, people from other localities or even villages, faceless and anti-socials beings! This transfer of culpability is not done by the aggressor out of guilt alone. The survivor too is complicit in this act, knowing fully well that he has no option but to share space with the aggressor even going forward and more importantly, to sate his need to believe that his friendly face of the yore couldn’t have turned beastly one day. Stories of such negationism (denial followed by fantasy) have been witnessed across riot torn people ever since the nature of riots became a subject of study. A few years after the partition, the very Punjabi who otherwise boasted of the number of men he killed or of the women he violated, started blaming the faceless 'other' for all ills of those riots.

While this negationism does manage to bandage the wound sufficient enough for life to progress, is this fair to those who suffered in riots? And how effective is denial in ‘reforming’ those who engage in riots?

Why does any society, howsoever primitive, possess a code of law which seeks to punish those who digress social mores? Simply speaking - to restore the societal balance, to provide justice to the harmed and most importantly, to punish the culprit for the crime so that the fear of punishment acts as a deterrent were he to stray from the societal path again.

But imagine a situation where the culprit is sought to be hidden and blame assigned to faceless people? Is the society then doing enough to redress the harm caused to the victim? Even more importantly, is it performing its moral obligation to hold a mirror to the culprit and show him his face made ugly by the crime? Punishment obviously cannot be imposed when the culprit is not even identified. So, is the culprit deterred by this denial? No. Is he emboldened further? Ys, as he knows no fear of punishment, secure in knowledge that he will neither be identified, nor shamed nor punished!

While the need for those involved in riots to engage in this exercise of denial can still be understood, what is inexplicable as to why do Governments and media-person engage in negationism? One generous reason could be their genuine belief in efficacy of denial. The second and more tragic reason is their pandering to their respective ideologies and biases. Hence, homilies abound whenever reporting of riots have to happen. If possible, riots don’t get reported if a particular community is the culprit and if too large to be ignored, blame is assigned to the victims. Readers shaking their heads in disbelief at this assertion would do good to take a single case - Bareilly, which has witnessed 3 riots in the last 2 years. The riots of March 2010, when the mob celebrating birthday of the Prophet attacked Hindu homes was sought to be blamed on Bajrang Dal. The July 2012 riots when mobs attacked Kaanwarias was sought to be blamed on music being played by them and riots again now, where scapegoats are still being found. A person reading news-reports of these riots will be stuck by the absence of any reproach for the Muslim mobs. If, even for arguments sake, it is agreed that music is abhorrent to Muslims, does it give them the right to murder and commit mayhem?

What will help in restoring order? A Government which identifies the culprits and punishes them or a one which only seeks to blame the victim?

An indulgent mother, who chooses to blame other kids for the shenanigans of her bully child only paves the way for her child becoming a hardened criminal. If only she had overcome her immediate maternal instincts and chosen to punish the child for his wrongdoings, her child still could have had a chance at being reformed. Sadly for the Nation, this attitude of successive governments and powerful media houses will only spell doom for its tottering fraternity. For too long has the Government and media indulged in this dangerous game of negationism. Will it have courage to recognise that their short term selfish interests are creating a Frankenstein which will devour them, in not so distant a future?

Let them have some courage, courage to see and report truth as it is. Let them develop a conviction strong enough to recognise that even the genuinely aggrieved, irrespective of their community, don’t have the right to riot and kill innocents. Let them be brave enough to recognise that there people who have grown on a narrative of victimhood can be the oppressors too.

Mopallah Rebellion - Part 2, 3, ...., n?

The year was 1921 and large swathes of India were in throes of an agitation. An agitation to force British to cede power to Indians and also to force them to reinstate the Caliphate in Turkey.  Interestingly, this Khilafat movement did not originate in Turkey, the seat of the erstwhile Ottoman empire. It did not originate in Iraq, the seat of among the most glorious of Caliphates. It did not originate in Saudi Arabia, the land of the two holy mosques either, nor did it originate in Iran, the seat of among the mightiest empires the world has seen. Not only did none of these Islamic Nations rise in protest against abolition of the seat of the Caliph, the spiritual and temporal head of Muslims worldwide; none of these Nations' protests came even close to the intensity  displyed by Khilafat in India. 

For most people, the act of deposing a never seen, never heard, never knew existed, nominal King in very very distant lands would not even register into consciousness. Inexplicably though, the issue was potent enough to harness the collective rage of large masses of Indian Muslims against the British. For the first time after the 1857 War of Independence did the Muslims see the British as enemies and they, as a body, for the first time joined a quasi struggle for freedom against the British. 

A movement for India, which was built around a cause irrelevant to India was bound to unravel and fail. Within a few months, the Khilafat movement morphed into the bloody Mopallah riots of Malabar, where the Muslim Mopallah, having been beaten by the British, turned its wrath to the hapless Hindu community. No distinction was made in between the peasant, the outcaste the jenmi (Landlord) and the Namboodiri (Brahmin), nor was any thought spared for the women and the old. Dr Annie Besant reported that Muslim Mappila (Mopallah) forcibly converted many Hindus and killed or drove away all Hindus who would not apostatise, a number totaling to one lakh!

The Mopallah rebellion was the first among the many pogroms which preceded the state of Pakistan and showed what the Hindu could expect in a state governed by Islamic Law. While discussion on the massacres preceding and succeeding creation of Pakistan can take Gigabytes and Gigabytes, what is noteworthy that the ‘path’ shown by the Mopallah has been faithfully followed by the agitating Muslim even 90 years into that gory chapter of Indian history.

For those among us who mutter in muted tones on why should Muslims riot in Mumbai for supposed atrocities committed on their co-religionists in Myanmar (a foreign country), and Assam, they probably forget that such rioting has historical and recent precedent. Be it US attack on Iraq or a demonstration in support of Osama Bin Laden, the presence of Taslima Nasreen or attack on Afghanistan, the aggrieved Indian Muslim has rioted, killed and damaged public and private property. A little earlier, it rioted when Satanic Verses was banned, when the British invaded Suez and when the hair of the Prophet at Hazratbal was stolen. Note that in none of these riots could the average Hindu or even his co-religionist anywhere, could be accused of ‘hurting’ the Muslim but the former was the inevitable target of these riots. Seems that we will live to see a thousand more Mopallah rebellions on our lands.

Refer to Riots after Riots for a more detailed note.

PS:

Sadly, while our media discourse stretches credulity when it would make us believe that only an aggrieved minority has the right to protest, it goes far beyond the borders of negationism, when it manages to justify violence committed in course of unrelated protests. One gentleman from Times of India, today reports that 50 people, ‘dressed’ as Muslims protested at Lucknow today. This, when even TwoCircles.net reports that Muslims rioted in Lucknow and Allahabad and as per Rediff, this protesting mob was around 25,000 strong.

It is only a matter of time...

“My heart goes out for the people of Assam” so said Jawaharlal Nehru, when the hapless people of Assam were staring at the prospect of being invaded by the marauding Chinese. Nehru did not wash his hands off the North East with these immortal words. His Government ordered district treasuries to burn Indian currency lest they fell into Chinese hands and facilitated the exodus of civil servants from the state scrambling to escape the Chinese Invasion.

Much to Nehru’s surprise, the Chinese withdrew and Assamese realized that they were still an Indian state. Only, now with a realization that they were dispensable and mattered little to those dictating India’s destiny from their hallowed quarters at Delhi. Nehru and successive Governments have done precious little to allay the security concerns of our people from the North East. For decades, no roads were developed or bridges constructed out of the fear that they will aid the Chinese troops when they invade the North East next! Some border road development does seem to be happening now, now when the Arunachal border is connected to the Chinese mainland with all weather railway lines!

Successive governments at New Delhi have not been oblivious of the fact that armed invasions are not the only means to subjugate a people. Since we left the North East to its fate when they suffered an armed invasion, isn’t it fair that we leave them on their fate in face of other invasions too? If not the Chinese, why not the Bangladeshis? Assam has to be subjugated and preferably cut off from the rest of India and any means would do!

The recent bloodshed and humanitarian tragedy occupied a full 4.5 days of our National Media. Quite an achievement when the Guwahati molestation continues to stir up outrage and Rumi Nath continues to get new defenders of faith! Very clearly, for the National media, the death toll of 50 (official) and 4 lakhs of refugees mean little. But why did the same media go apoplectic when less than a tenth of these figures were affected by the Kandhamal riots, triggered off by the dastardly assassination of a venerated Hindu saint and his disciples? Let us not even talk of their Gujarat cottage industry where it would seem that massacres in African states took inspiration from the badlands of Gujarat.

Is it because it is quite inconvenient to visit Assam, particularly the affected districts? Or is it because the people don’t really resemble the ‘mainland Indians’ that much? Or is it because they believe that the North East is made of savage barbaric tribes who fall upon each other periodically just to sate their primeval bloodlust?  Or is it because the riots were between Hindus and Muslims, in which, horrors of horrors, atrocity on the Hindus, were too stark to be swept under the carpet? But try they did. Read any news-report and you will find it beginning with sorry tales of Muslim victims before it apologetically puts in a few lines for the Hindu victims too! One wonders what would have the police reaction been in case the ‘Promotion of communal violence bill’ been law? As per that Act, the Hindu refugees would have been treated as criminals and put behind bars!

Sadly, even those news anchors and columnists who are not unsympathetic to the plight of the Assamese Hindu, have adopted the moniker of ‘immigrants’ for the Bangladeshi swarms on Indian land. They are not ‘immigrants’. They are infiltrators. Period. 

Again, these people would like us to believe that this is not a Hindu vs. Muslim issue. Certainly, the Assamese Hindu sees both Hindu and Muslim Bangladeshis as people who have no rights over Assam but does the Assamese Muslim see it the same way? The answer is a clear no, with Muslim leaders vehemently protesting even the articulation of the idea of infiltration. If this is not about religion, why does the Assamese Muslim stand up with his Hindu counterpart to decry this demographic invasion? Why do all minority bodies in Assam promote and support the continued infiltration from across the border? Why do these leaders prefer to ignore the reality of Bodo refugees and claim that Muslims bore the brunt of the riots?

No amount of obfuscation would cover the fact the demographic invasion from Bangladesh has resulted in the native people becoming a threatened minority in their own lands. A proud race which withstood Islamic invasions and chased the Mughals out of their lands stand subjugated today, defeated by its very own Mir Jafars and Jai Chands. Lower Assam is as good as lost to us now, with the ethnic cleansing in this round of riots resulting in exodus of the remaining Hindu population from those districts. It took less than 3 years to cleanse Kashmir valley, 20 years to cleanse the West Pakistani lands to erase its Hindu population, and 25 years to irretrievably Islamise the East Bengal Lands. It has taken barely a century to silently invade and cover large swathes of Assam and adjoining states. The fact that the initial Bangladeshis were refugee Hindus does little to soothe the angst of the overwhelmed people. Who, in his right mind would be so generous so as to take in so many dependents that he turns to being a dependent himself? Unfortunately, for the North Easterners, the Tripura tribal has lost the land of his forefathers to refugees from the other side. The same way, Barak valley had turned into an outpost of Bengal long before the problem of Muslim infiltration had raised its head.

Some columnists have tried to give a spin to this entire saga by claiming the Bodo angst to the chauvinism of MNS. Are these people even aware of the import of what they are speaking about? To claim that the Bodo hostility to the Muslim infiltrator, if not controlled, will spill over to the Adivasi, to the Assamese and then the Indian is Goebbelsian propaganda of the worst order. Which Nation in this world would grant infiltrators rights? Forget about rights on an equal footing with its citizens? Even the celebrated Human Rights icon Au Sang Su Ki draws the line when it comes for ‘rights’ for the Rohingya Muslims, who by all accounts, are not Myanmarese citizens but descendants of Bangladeshi infiltrators. And since Myanmar won’t accept them and Bangladesh has little use for them, what better than to accommodate them in India? One can only wonder on how could over four thousand of them manage to supposedly cross Myanmarese borders and travel across Assam, Bengal, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh to reach New Delhi to demand rights on our lands?

Over millenniums, India has been a melting pot of people from various races coming, settling and then finally mingling with the Hindu society. These people adopted the Hindu way of life, their dress and the language such that we cannot even make out the origin of people in our midst. But, these were people who wanted to be one amongst us. How can the Indian Nation embrace people who come stealthily, displace and dispossess us and wish to become masters of our destiny?

Is it only a matter of time that another feckless Prime Minster will exclaim ‘My heart goes out for the people of Assam’ once again?

India Vs Bharat

The economic development of the country has, among others, accorded newer meanings to older terms. While our founding father made our constitution proclaim the country as ‘India, that is Bharat…’ contemporary discourse recognizes these two as distinct entities. An India which is literate, modern, liberal and prosperous vis-à-vis a Bharat, which comprises of the unwashed masses, trying desperately to migrate to India. What could be a starker testimony than the names adopted by the anti-corruption crusaders of our days? If the urban, English literate classes flock to Anna’s ‘India Against Corruption, the earthy Baba Ramdev, appeals to his constituency with a ‘Bharat Swabhiman Andolan.

Our people, who are Bharatiya, form a significantly larger number when compared to our Indians. Hence, our wily politicians spare no efforts to proclaim their affection for the Bharatiya while ensuring that they, their children and their kin reach the highest echelons of Indian-ness.  But why blame when it is the pragmatic approach. Bharat has votes while India has resources and Bharat wants to become India in the long run! Funnily, there is a large multitude residing in the nether zones in between India and Bharat, who enjoy dual citizenship or are stateless! Don’t be surprised if you discover that you are one of them, someone imagining oneself to be an Indian but the Indians seeing the person as a Bharatiya.

A policy planner would be excused if he allocates resources to these Nations on the assumption that Bharat is only playing catch up and that except for greater support, the end needs of these Nations are the same. What would a parent do if one of the two children is prosperous while the other weak, but industrious and aspiring of coming to equal status to the sibling? This parent would recognize that the child’s initiatives should not be blunted with a feeling of entitlement and would ensure that the child gets as much support as possible to make the child realize his dreams. 

However, today we are faced with a situation where the artificial cleavage between Bharat and India is getting deepened.  Our leaders arrogantly dismiss concerns raised by India stating that they represent the ‘real’ Bharat. If that be the case, who represents Indians and the stateless/dual citizenship holders of this land? If Bharat is the only ‘rea’l entity than are Indians and wannabe Indians mere figments of our imagination? Or such people are to be treated like soiled tissue papers who should only pay taxes and expect nothing in return? Where is the concern for minority whose concerns this Government likes to protect?  Since it is much more easy to arrest someone’s growth as compared to making someone grow, what better way to achieve socialism to ensure that the ‘somewhat haves’ become ‘have nots’ in the long run. How can poverty be glorious? Which mother would want her child to sustain on doles forever? How can you sustain a system which stunts human industriousness and makes a virtue of deprivation?

The Nehruvian model of economic mismanagement did not allow the Bharatiya to step out of poverty. At the same time, it nurtured countless families such that a handful of them came to control over a fifth of the country’s resources. The economic liberalization model was not without severe fault and in many ways, mirrored crony capitalism. But can we afford to throw the baby with the bathwater? If something does not work, it does not make its opposite valid. A non-performing Indian Airlines does not mean that privatization of Airlines is the way out. An ill-functioning democracy does not make autocracy a viable governance model. Rising crime does not ipso facto mean that more laws are required. Conduct an analysis of flaws and resist the temptation to offer pre-determined solutions. 

That no person should die of hunger or want of medicines or for lack of basic human values are, and if they are not, they should be the bedrock of our civilization. What the Nation needs to devise are valid and sustainable means to achieve those goals. A Rs 70,000/- Crore MNREGA has damaged the rural economy without resulting in much tangible assets. A 140,000/- MP/MLAAD has fared even worse. Can the Nation sustain such noble but ill-conceived initiatives?

How can any policy which addresses only one facet of the Nation succeed? Tonics to any one of the conjoined twins will boost the growth of the other. At the same time a poison pill for one of them will very certainly kill the other too. If not us, will the policy makers trust at least the wisdom of our founding fathers and recognize that Bharat is India and India is Bharat?

Love as a tool?

“If you go to Guruvayur, you will not see Krishna there. He is with me.... I haven’t abandoned him. He’s still with me, he’s in my house... I’ve just had to rename him Mohammed”

Thus spake Madhavi Kutty aka Kamala Das aka Kamala Surayya. Aristocratic, upper-caste, Krishna lover, descendant of rajas, the ever controversial Kamala Das managed the biggest scandal of her scandalous career when she decided to embrace Islam in 1999. Praised by the Muslims for her adoption of the Arabic way of life and condemned by Hindus for her seeming sacrilege, Kamala Surayya was not destined to enjoy her new religion for very long. She died in 2009 and was buried as a Muslim. 

Unlike her death, which did not elicit much attention, her conversion became a matter of debate among the Keralaites. Of the various conspiracy theories surrounding her conversion, i.e., Ismail Merchant promising to make a movie on her book, promise of a legislative seat in lieu of conversion, one stuck – that she was in love with a young Muslim politician. Kamala had little to say in this regard only claiming that she felt much more comfortable and secure among the Muslims. 

Unfortunately, the conspiracy theorists were right for once. Kamala had indeed converted out of love for a twice married Kerala Muslim League Leader. A man almost as young as his son, this leader swept the widowed Kamala off her feet and induced her to convert, with marriage as reward. Love makes a fool of anyone irrespective of age. Madhavi Kutty proved no different to a teenager when she followed the call of her heart and became something she never was. Alas! Her efforts were to be in vain. The promised marriage never happened and the ‘lover’ simply stopped taking her calls, passing those to his other wives. Kamala died a broken woman, unwilling to talk about those heady days, her last adventure failing miserably in its mission, leaving her sans her extended family and clan. It was probably out of pity that those caste and religious organizations, which were baying for her blood after her conversion and scandalous utterances, stopped pursuing cases lodged against her. So much so for Kamala Das.

But why to talk of Kamala Das now? We talk because it has relevance even today; for a farce is being played yet again, this time in the North East rather than the South. A Congress MLA, Rumi Nath has married a younger Jacky Zakir, after having converted and before divorcing her first husband. Rumi has a daughter from her first husband and was reportedly pregnant at the time of her second marriage. Matters would not have come to notice of Delhi media but for an assault on Rumi and her husband by a group of some 100 odd people in her constituency. Contrary to Rumi’s later claims, her visit to her flood affected constituency was widely protested with even the homeless telling her to leave their relief camps. Anyways, a physical assault, which is of course condemnable, has resulted in giving a feminist and women rights twist to the entire farce and Rumi Nath has emerged as a spokesperson for women demanding rights over their own lives. That Rumi visited a temple, lied that she had not converted and that temple was put on fire following the assault has been rendered immaterial. Her act of abandoning her family and committing an illegal act has anyways been condoned by the champions of a woman's rights over her body. Interestingly, Rumi will probably never be punished for her crime of bigamy as the Hadiths clearly lays down that the previous marriage of a non-Muslim woman stands liquidated the moment she accepts Islam!

We like to believe that conversion is a personal act and if the Indian Nation allows people to follow a religion of their choice, no one should have any issue with a person willing to convert. Even if we leave aside the facet of inducement and fraud, it has been the aim of all proselytizing religions to convert people enjoying social eminence, believing that they will prove the most potent vehicle of the new ‘word’ to the masses. Buddhism’s early converts were not the laymen, but Brahmins and Kings. Christianity spread only after the Roman emperor embraced it. In India, during the Company era, the missionaries targeted all their efforts towards the royalty and sections of Bengali Bhadralok hoping that those converts will act as seeds to a bountiful harvest. Unfortunately for Christianity in India, conversions of Michael Madhusudan Dutt, Toru Dutt, Duleep Singh and the like hardly made any impression among others. Even though the experiment notably failed, it has apparently not deterred the evangelisers to pursue conversion of high profile individuals, hoping that a long term cultural change emerges out of such acts.

And can we say that the latter premise has been proven incorrect? The conversion of Sharmila Tagore caused a National outrage but the possibility of Kareena converting hardly is any issue. Almost all the Muslim film stars have had Hindu Girlfriends / wives and so, what was a taboo even half a century back, is well accepted now. 

For some years now, some sections of society have formed a hypothesis that the act of wooing, marrying and sometimes abandoning Non Muslim women by Muslim youth is a part of a larger ‘Love Jihad’. While it may seem laughable, rumours do not demand fact and seemingly disjointed occurrences become fuel enough to feed them. Rumi Nath’s marriage was facilitated by a powerful Muslim MLA from the Barak valley. We don’t know if Rumi will suffer the same fate as Kamala Das. What we do know is that a high profile conversion has occurred in a manner which is nothing less than ghastly. While Islamists may pat their back on such victories, do such acts promote secularism and societal peace in any way? While circumspect Hindus were always wary of their daughters’ friendship with youths of other religions, now the suspicious will have all the more reasons to frown on friendships their married women have with men from other religions. Can a fragile society afford further deepending of cleavages caused by such mistrust?

Quotes from/on Kamala Das taken from The Love Queen of Malabar by Merrily Weisbord.

Self Mutilation as Politics

Old is Gold, it is said. And indeed, Eastern civilizations abound in tales of the wise, who were invariably old, venerable figures. It is not without reason that the longest chapter in the Mahabharata is Shanti Parva, containing discourse of the Kuru Elder, Bhishma. In an era, where wisdom meant tales, both experiential and heard, having weathered numerous summers and having enjoyed countless springs was the surest way to assemble knowledge.

Even today, the oldest of the intellectuals, if still mentally agile, can astound the young with depth of their knowledge. 

Yet, time is a tireless enemy which creeps upon one and sundry. While ageing and signs of entropy are seldom a pleasant sight, the pain becomes more pronounced when time impacts people who were instrumental in creating history.

Whichever side of the divide one is, one will be hard pressed not to pause and wonder on what has made the architect of the modern Hindutva movement in India a pale shadow of what he was. For a man who could do no wrong, be it strongly articulating the Hindu angst, making the BJP the party for power, grooming the strongest Gen-next leadership in the nineties, supporting liberalization, renouncing electoral politics when stained or giving up the claim to Prime Ministership, the tables seem to have turned so much so that his once killer political instincts seem to have got seriously blunted.

The last decade and a half have not been kind to Shri Advani. For a man who was seen as a successor to Sardar Patel, his stint as the Home Minister will always be overshadowed by the colossal mismanagement of Kandhar hijacking. His only real shot at Prime Ministership in 2004 got mired in the thoughtless India Shining campaign and his intellectually dishonest declaration of Jinnah as secular robbed him of the moral high ground he possessed. If the admirer still hoped that the genius of Shri Advani would ensure his rebirth, he was disappointed again when the sham of Notes for Vote hit the Nation. This was not all. The Nation had to be a party to the spectacle of Shri Advani being made the butt of joke for his dumbbell lifting, karate chop acts in 2009 General elections followed by the unseemly scene of the diminishing RSS trying to order a reluctant Advani off the public sphere.

Now, Advaniji seems intent on making a spectacle of the BJP yet again by forcing the reluctant party to contest the lost Presidential elections.

It is not difficult to empathize with those who don’t desire a contest. For an election which is already lost, what is to be gained by diminishing one’s stature even more? If the BJP were so serious about contesting, why did they have to wait to finalize a candidate for so long? If Kalam was the intended choice, why could the BJP not convince even Jayalalitha to support him? We are now left with the spectacle of the party going mall-shopping for candidates with the ageing Advani trying to push support for Sangma. For the apologists, that the BJP is not willing to give the UPA a walkover is reason valid enough to contest and a public display of its willingness to fight the UPA is certain to boost BJP’s standing among the general public.

But seriously, what will the BJP gain by contesting a no-gamer? If it for symbolic value of supporting a tribal, a Christian for the President’s post, the media and Mr Advani will do good to themselves to remember that the first such candidate was put up by the BJP itself in 1992, in form of Mr George Gilbert Swell, against Shankar Dayal Sharma. While we don’t know if that sagacious act led to any accretion of BJP’s support base amongst the Christian community, what we certainly know is that the same GG Swell denounced the BJP on the floor of the house in 1996 and voted against the confidence vote on the thirteen day Vajpayee Government. This was barely 10 days post his affirming his and 6 fellow MPs support to Vajpayee, but that is another story.

Even though the outcome of the Presidential Elections of 2007 was even more pre-determined, the NDA still had valid grounds to contest the polls. Not only did the Sonia Gandhi led UPA commit an atrocity on the Nation in form of the current incumbent’s candidature, the BJP had a towering personality, as its presidential candidate. Further, even though the NDA did not expand (Shiv Sena actually walked away), it did manage to gain votes of the AIADMK, Panther’s Party, INLD, AGP and AGP(P) in those polls.

Here, even before the polls, the Shiv Sena has yet again walked away and it is likely that the JD(U) and Akali Dal will follow suit. If the motive is to gain affection of either Mamata, Jaya or Naveen, why does it have to be at the cost of long standing allies, the only ones from the 1996 Government days?

Even if the BJP had a good candidate, would it still be a reason enough to oppose Pranab Mukherjee? Granted that Mr Mukherjee’s stint as the Finance Minister has not been great, granted that his image is even more Teflon coated than Mr Jaitley’s in the sense that there has not been even the slightest hint of criticism of his role and even granted that as Finance Minister, he cannot absolve himself of responsibility regarding numerous scams which have plagued the UPA regimes. Still, Mr Mukherjee deserves to be the President of the country, if for nothing else, for bringing back a semblance of gravity to the post.

It is after twenty five years that the country has the opportunity of having as its Head, a political personality, who is neither a lightweight, nor a political has-been or a symbolic appointment. The winner of the 1987 polls, R Venkatraman was in active politics when he became the President and had been the home and defence minister of the country. His successor, Dr Shankar Dayal Sharma was leading a semi retired life in form of gubernatorial postings before he became the Vice President. Following him was KR Narayanan, a political lightweight who became President on account of being at the right place at the right time. While Dr APJ Abul Kalam enjoyed phenomenal popularity as the President, he was not a political person when nominated and his glory days with DRDO were far behind him. Regarding his successor, the lesser said the better. Though, to be fair to her, Ms Patil has conducted herself much more admirably that the outrightly biased KR Narayanan.

Compared to his 4 predecessors, Pranab Mukherjee, with almost half a century of political life behind him, is much better placed to don the role of the President of this country. If Mr Mukherjee is to be opposed merely for the reason that Ms Sonia Gandhi displayed ill grace in not even consulting with the NDA leaders before announcing his candidature, well, that is a fig leaf of a reason and only serves to even more belittle the dignity of the post.

But why, why does Mr Advani, (alongwith Ms Sushma Swaraj and Mr Anant Kumar) persist in pushing for a contest? While for Anant Kumar, it could be a mode of repaying his debt to Advaniji for standing by him in his intrigues against Yedyurappa, for Ms Swaraj, it could either be a genuine respect for the patriarch or a baser way of getting back at Mr Arun Jaitley. What we need not speculate is the reason behind Advaniji’s persistence. Who else, but the Trojan who has destroyed Advani and in the process damaged the BJP beyond recognition? Yes, the architect of the India Shining campaign, of the secular Jinnah fiasco, of the Notes for Vote sham, is at it once again. And he will not rest till his mission, i.e., decimation of the BJP is achieved.

Even for the most noble purpose of vanquishing the enemy, it is difficult for any person to cohabit with it, to claim to think of its good, to denounce one’s old attachments and be careful enough not to utter what one holds dear in life. It is one thing to say that one should mingle with the enemy to defeat if and another to practice. But, it is men like Sudheendra Kulkarni who can warm our hearts enough to still believe that men can still be committed to their ideology strongly enough and do what was hitherto considered impossible. One can only salute the bitter pills Kulkarni has swallowed and still swallows as he proclaims himself a BJP man. One cannot even imagine the torment his soul is under as he hides his Marxist identity and wears a saffron mask. O Kulkarni, you are a Trojan if there was one.

My Sweet Lord

Only sometime back, a learned, a little eccentric but very much lovable cousin of mine exclaimed that the celebrated saint Narsi Mehta was not really a saint. Though used to him springing verbal surprises now and then, the comment on Narsi Mehta became all the more difficult to digest when one considered that the commentator was someone who fancied himself a devout Hindu. Prodded for reason, my cousin had a simple explanation – A saint does not ask anything from God. But Narsi Mehta disturbed Krishna frequently, sometimes making Him come down as Shyamal Das to pay off his debt or to make him come with Maayro for his daughter. How could a person, who ‘used’ God so materially, be a true saint?

Frankly, while I try to see merit in what my cousin had to say, my empathy for his thoughts stops with my belief that there can be no one way to approach Him. While Loving God for His own sake is arguably one of the highest forms of devotion, such selfless Love is more aspirational than real for the layman. 

With passage of time, what was once new becomes integral and at times, memories of yore get erased altogether. For the practising Hindu, who takes joy in the tales of Shabari’s berries or upholding of Draupadi’s honour, it may be slightly jarring to realise and accept that none of these tales, which entail God with the warmest human qualities, formed part of the original epics. Valmiki Ramayana only mentions that Shabari treated Rama & Lakshmana as venerable guests. The heart touching tale of Rama consuming her half eaten berries form a part of narrative in the Padma Purana, which was a much later creation. Likewise, the critical edition of Mahabharata has Draupadi’s honour being saved through a miracle, i.e., a saree once removed was replaced with another saree. Here, Draupadi had appealed to the higher powers, throwing her hands open in the skies and the skies had responded. Her heart rending appeal of Krishna and His making the saree become endless is but a later edition.

Iravati Karwe in her authoritative tomes, have cast doubts over the existence of Bhagvad Gita as a single text. Contending that the nature of the first six chapters are radically different from the later twelve, she argues that while the former gel with overall narrative of the Mahabharata, the latter are only later additions, put by proponents of Bhakti. 

Prof Karwe and many others seem to have little sympathy for Bhakti as an emotion for they contend that Bhakti transferred the onus of activity from self to God and by default, promoted fatalism and a passive avoidance of assertive activity. Prof Karwe outlines the achievements made in the Vedic era and contrasts them with the saga of defeats and compromises made in the medieval ages and tacitly holds preponderance of Bhakti for the passivity of the Indian people.

While the facts presented by Prof Karwe could be incontrovertible, the conclusions may only be partly true. Bhakti as a philosophy in India gained prominence in the North with the formal composition of various Puranas around the Gupta reign and with the devotional outpourings of the 12 Vaishnava Alwars and 63 Shaiva Nayanars, in the Southern parts of the country, around 7^th-8^th century CE.

But what could have caused this later development of Hinduism?

Going back to the hoary past looking for answers in Vedic literature, one is stuck by the societal obsession with maintaining order. A king had to uphold dharma so that it could rain on time, sacrifices had to be performed so that the gods could bless with grains, cows and sons, offerings had to be made so that the gods could become powerful enough to bless! Truly, while awe and devotion to the heavenly powers are all pervading in the Vedas, it could seem that many a times, the relation between gods and humans was transactional. If the humans did not perform sacrifices on time, the gods would lose power and the danavas would gain. And if the gods became weaker, the humans would suffer in form of draught and poverty. It is not very difficult to visualise as to why did the Vedic religion lost the laity’s attraction gradually. A religion, whose abstract metaphysics, while rich, became but a preserve of a few and the religion in practice, was seen as an agglomeration of rituals designed to uphold the cosmic order. An order so grand in scale that an individual could hardly visualise his role in it. The God became a distant deity, one to be feared and appeased, one who was too far removed to condone human frailties and embrace the shunned and the weak.

The gap which the Vedic literature could not fill was sought to be filled by our epics. Valmiki Ramayana was among the earliest texts which enumerated the merits of Bhakti and detailed how could a devotee attain God in various ways. Soon after, Puranas were composed, making God achievable through simple acts of śravaṇa (listening), kīrtana (group praising), smaraṇa (remembrance), seva (service), Archana (deity worship), vandana (Prayer), dāsya (servitude), sākhya (friendship), and ātma-nivedana (self-surrender).

If the scriptures themselves certify that even devotional love could be of so many varieties, how can we, as lesser mortals proclaim that one mode of worship is superior to the other?

Rationalists and atheists will of course argue that Religion and God are but inventions of a lost, weak and insecure human mind. Even if for arguments sake, we accept this contention as true, what difference does it make? I can be a witness to truth only the way I see it. And I can see God and His work manifest in countless forms all around. What need then I have to acquiesce to the ‘rational’ when it doesn’t make any sense to me?

While many sociologists and thinkers have tried to explain devotion as an ersatz relationship for a great loss / shortcoming in life, the view seems too cynical and uninformed. While it is true that a beaten soul tries to find solace in God, there are numerous instances where, the most materially blessed are into Him as much as a wandering mendicant is. Even for people, who strive to find God to make up for a loss, how could their devotion be any lesser? If even the rationalist looks towards his friends and family for succour when beaten, why would the one in trouble not approach Him, the only one who is all embracing, all loving and all forgiving.

We, the Hindus have often been accused of being very materialistic even with regards to our love for God, i.e., our prayers and hymns are full of demands on Gods. While that is true, what could be more shocking for the puritans is the acceptability of abuse as a form of worship! Though dying out now, even a few decades back, the devout was not above engaging in Ninda Stuti, abusing God for the blessings he did not shower. While scandalising for many, it does make sense. My personal God is the one with whom I have multiple connections; of a child, a friend, a parent, a lover, a servant and even a master (God being the dasa of the Bhakta). If endowed with so much of power, it would be foolish not to exercise it and remind God of his duties towards me!

Then, what wrong did poor Narsi Mehta commit? Even more in his defence, he did not even ask for anything from his Krishna. And if Krishna gave of His own will, how could Narsi Mehta refuse? J

On a more serious note, who in his senses, having even once drunk the nectar of His Grace, would not want to be a Rabia and proclaim:

"O God! If I worship You for fear of Hell, burn me in Hell,

and if I worship You in hope of Paradise, exclude me from Paradise.
But if I worship You for Your Own sake,
grudge me not Your everlasting Beauty.”

Or be a Raskhan and cry aloud:

“Make me but a cowherd of Gokul, if I were to be born a human again,

A cow in Nand’s herds, if am to be an animal

If I were to be a lifeless stone only, be it a stone of the mountain you held aloft

I will become a bird, if that be your wish, my Lord. Let me then dwell on but a little branch, of Your Kadamba on the banks of Your Kalindi.”

I do not aspire to be a Karraikkal Amma who climbed Kailasha on her head to see You; I do not desire to be a Meera who left everything behind to be with You; I cannot dare to be like Akka Mahadevi, who in her blissful state, discarded even her robes; nay, I cannot be like any of those whose tales make us believe that You are achievable. Without Your Grace, I cannot even move a step on the path to achieve You.  Allow me that much of Grace, O Lord, that when I think of You, I think of only You and no one but You.