It is no 'Alternative'

“This book is cleverly and powerfully written. The carefully chosen quotations give it the false appearance of a truthful book. But the impression it leaves on my mind is that it is the report of a drain inspector sent out with the one purpose of opening and examining the drains of the country to be reported upon, or to give a graphic description of the stench exuded by the opened drains. If Miss Mayo had confessed that she had come to India merely to open out and examine the drains of India, there would perhaps be little to complain about her compilation. But she declared her abominable and patently wrong conclusion with a certain amount of triumph: 'the drains are India'.”

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi – on Katherine Mayo’s Mother India

Katherine Mayo was an American researcher and historian. Her fame or rather infamy in India rests with her magnum opus ‘Mother India’ in which she attacked the Hindu society and religion, alluding to the treatment of its women, the Harijans (as known then), the animals, the dirt and the character of its politicians. As was expected, the British welcomed and enthusiastically propagated the book. Even more expectedly, the book outraged Indians and over fifty books/pamphlets were penned in response. Some of these highlighted the gross errors and inaccuracies in the book while others sought to denounce the ‘conclusions’ of Mother India on more polemical grounds.

Unfortunately, Ms Mayo’s work proved to be a powerful influence on the American view of India. A simple testimony to it would be the fact that Mother India is known even today and hardly any of its rebuttals elicit any recall.

Katherine Mayo was neither the first nor the last foreigner who looked at India and the Hindu society with suspicion and disdain. While the Indian society will remain indebted to those who discovered and propagated the wealth of Indian thought, we, as a Nation, cannot but ignore the immense damage the numerous ‘drain inspectors’ have inflicted on our psyche and the way we are perceived by the ‘others’.

James Mill wrote an authoritative ‘The History of British India’ without ever visiting the country. Yet, this book, published in 1818 brought him fame as an expert on India and within a year, he was appointed to the India house. The book and his seventeen years of association with India effected a dramatic change in the way the Nation was perceived by the British and consequently, on how it was governed. No longer was the Hindu seen as a descendant of a noble and cultured race, now enslaved. It was declared "under the glosing exterior of the Hindu, lies a general disposition to deceit and perfidy.” (chapter titled General Reflections in 'Of the Hindus', The History of British India). It will not be an exaggeration to say that this highly influential work, particularly the section 'Of the Hindus' comprising ten chapters, played a huge part in cementing Indophobia and hostility to Orientalism.

Why so much of history?

Because history is repeating itself – both as a tragedy and a farce. The banshee like wailing over withdrawal of the book by Penguin India is turning bizarre and ‘bizarrer’. Not only have the protestors been labelled Taliban, Penguin’s act has been linked to the likelihood of the BJP coming to power. Some worthies have condemned it as being grievously harmful to Hinduism while others lament on how the protesters are not true Hindus ala their inability to live the liberal ethos of their religion

How much merit do these arguments have when the self proclaimed liberals declare this voluntary withdrawal a ban? How can their painting of book protestors as fascists be taken seriously when these protestors have engaged in a very civil, legal and constitutional mean of registering their protest?

Yet, since even the most well meaning may get swayed by magical wordsmithery of the Arundhati Roys and Ramachandra Guhas of the world, it will do good to analyse the ‘real’ arguments surrounding this controversy.

1. Prof Doniger is an academic. Academic works have to be accepted.

Do academic credentials provide immunity from inspection and criticism? Or is it rather that a tenured academician has a higher responsibility towards ensuring rigorous scientific enquiry before reaching conclusions?  

The criticism of ‘The Hindus...’ is based on its factual inaccuracies. Detailed chapter wise listing of these errors has been shared by many scholars/laypersons. Yet, Prof Doniger’s response to all criticisms has been a haughty ad hominem dismissal of the critics as Hindutva torchbearers. Even if all the critics were communalists, how does it validate Ms Doniger’s countless errors and inaccuracies? If we don’t have qualms in questioning and revisiting scriptures, which millions believe to be divine revelations, how can some output of a mere professor be above scrutiny?

2. The Hindus…’ is fruit of laborious labour. It provides an alternative view to the Hindu history

For a view-point to be seen as alternative, the original/mainstream must be known. What exactly is the original Hindu history as per Prof Doniger? Her book makes no reference to any such creature. It is her conclusions alone which are both the alternative and the mainstream!

The above statement may sound rhetorical. It is not, when you consider that the learned Prof uses twentieth and twenty first century ‘works’ to analyse Ramayana and Mahabharata.

3. Prof Doniger is being targeted because she is uncovering uncomfortable facts regarding our deities. She is being targeted for she is white.

KM Munshi’s stellar work, Krishnavatar narrates the life story of Krishna and the Pandavas. Though a devout Hindu (a revivalist and communalist as per the Marxist school), Munshi’s Krishna is not God. Iravati Karve declared Ramayana to be work of fiction and concluded that Yudhishthir was the son of Vidur through Niyoga. Recently, Amish Tripathi’s Shiva trilogy depicted a somewhat hippie like mortal as Shiva. Numerous texts, both ancient and medieval have commented and criticised gods over acts which are seen to have digressed from the path of Dharma. Yet, none of the above has been deemed offensive. It is because these alternative viewpoints stand subordinated to the spirit of enquiry and a general respect for the larger belief system.

Prof Diana Eck, another of the ‘white’ professors has been writing on Hinduism for long. Prof Eck too, has tried to analyse the roots of many practices of Hinduism. But, challenging her views might be, they are not offensive, if only because Prof Eck seeks reasoning and does not seem to be on a mission of invent and degenerate!

4. Hinduism has withstood numerous challenges over the last two millennium. How can a mere book harm it?

A three pronged answer to the above

One - The Hindu faith survived not because people comforted each other that it is too strong to be uprooted. It survived because across ages, great men and their followers took it upon themselves to defend their way of life and worship. At times, this meant taking up the role of missionary philosophers, at other times, military warriors, at times, bhakti saints and yet at some other times, social reformers.

Two – Works like ‘The Hindus…’ Kali’s Child or ‘Oh Terrifying Mother’ are not unique. Right from the time the missionaries identified India as the dark land, fit for an enormous harvest, many critiques of the Nation, its people, its faith, its culture have kept churning out with amazing frequency. But, even till the early twentieth century, each ‘Mother India’ had at least fifty responses. We do not have that luxury now. In fact, we don’t even need a Katherine Mayo to write another ‘Mother India’ for we have many Indians who will gladly do such hatchet jobs now.

Three – Our perception of self is to a large extent driven by how the others perceive us. The emerging ‘scholarship’ from the West, sired effectively by the likes of Wendy Doniger, Sarah Caldwell, Jeffery Kripal, et al and aided even more effectively by our own ‘useful idiots’, has successfully turned Hinduism studies as a study of the kinky, the exotic, the bizarre and the revolting. Works like ‘The Hindus…’ threaten the very space of practitioners for any attempt by the latter to correct the misrepresentations are denounced as fascism. It the invented ‘alternative’ becomes the mainstream, how exactly will the displaced original survive? If it sounds hyperbolic, just think of ‘Tantra’ in the western context. The immediate imagery is of ‘Tantrik sex’ and not of an alternate means of worship. How much respect will others have for Hindus if all their awareness of the faith is underlined by such abominations as ‘the red dot is symbolic of menstrual fluid’, ‘breaking of coconut is a proxy for human sacrifice’, ‘the handing over of a staff as the time of the sacred thread ceremony is symbolic of the father handing over his penis to his son’. This list can go on and on. Do people, or at least who believe, not have both a right and a duty to contest such portrayals of their faith?

Overall, ‘The Hindus…’ is just a ghastly work. It is a sad commentary on the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of some of our academicians that they are fighting for restitution of mischief and falsehoods.

PS

In a previous post, I had shared my views on why Prof Wendy Doniger’s – Hindus, An Alternative History is a bad book! In another post, I had commented on the Supreme Court upholding the ban on RV Bhasin’s book on grounds of social peace. In yet another post, I had expressed my anguish on the systemized muzzling of contrarian views. Hence, I have attempted not to repeat myself in the above note.

But they are ours...!

‘Yahya maybe a bastard but he is our bastard’.

A supposed comment made by the US President, Richard Nixon, when the facts of the Pakistani army’s war against the Hindus and Awami League supporters in East Pakistan became known.

To the genteel, such comments may seem horrifying, particularly when this b****** was committing a genocide in East Pakistan. However, what gets missed is that even if in varying degrees, each one of us is blessed / cursed with such sentiments. For one, parents are supposed to be oblivious to shortcomings of their children, friends are supposed to stand up for each other even when in wrong. After all, what are bonds if they are so weak that they cannot stand the strain of some human frailty!

Yet, human culture celebrates as heroic those acts, where actions and their consequences are weighed for their intrinsic worth. Those instances where a mother overcomes her maternal instincts to turn over a renegade progeny aka real life Mother Indias, where a wife kills her husband for his crimes, where one overcome your patriotism and attempt to kill a monster aka Count Stauffenberg, are stuff which legends are made of. The very fact such instances are few indicate that ordinary humans find it easier to turn a blind eye or rationalize acts which seem condemnable when committed by others.

Very soon after the Indian National Congress (not the current namesake but the vanguard of National struggle for Independence) had tasted power in the provinces, it was clear to both the leaders and the general public that the Indian office bearers were not very different when compared to their British counterparts as far as arrogance and a proclivity to enjoy the fruits the fruits of power were concerned. In fact, many of the office bearers saw no harm in using their new found powers to indulge in acts which even in the politest forms, would be called acts of nepotism and corruption. While these developments dismayed Gandhi, other leaders with a high moral quotient and the general public, there was little which they could do. At one level, there wasn’t any alternative to the INC and probably even more importantly, condemning the rogue acts would have been an admission that their beliefs in greatness of their leaders was misplaced.

Such trends continued and with hardening of political identities, party supporters very frequently find themselves indulging in all sorts of reasoning theatrics in attempting to defend the indefensible. This does not necessarily mean that all these supporters have a misbalanced sense of the right and the wrong. The reason could be as mundane as one’s perception of lack of better alternatives, belief in a particular ideology or a probably a deeper instinct of self preservation which makes people unwilling to accept that they had made bad choices. However, the ability of a human being to condone faults and overlook mistakes being limited, it does not take long before a vocal defence makes way for a sullen indifference.

For those who supported the Hindu Mahasabha, the RSS, the Jana Sangh and even the Swatantra Party, BJP’s ascendancy to power was seen as culmination of a decades long struggle. Hence, all these people who supported this political stream with all their might even in years when it had no chance to come to power, were willing to condone a tactical stepping back on those issues which made the BJS/RSS/BJP different from all the other options available in the market. However, which each passing blunder – Tehelka arms sting, the Kandhar hijack, China border agreement give-away, the erstwhile unalloyed support started giving way to convoluted reasoning, chiefly around a comparative logic – ‘Just look at the Congress, they are much worse’. What happens when such logic is stretched to the extremes? You start resembling the one you despise.

Most of the time, exceptional performance in the field of arts, sciences and sports are not a result of a breakthrough but of incremental improvements – a tweak here, a betterment there. It is the collective impact of all minor but continuous improvements spread over a period of time, that differentiate the exceptional from the ordinary.

What holds true for incremental improvements, holds equally true for decremental changes too. A compromise here, a mis-step there, a blunder at yet another occasion – all these together ensure that your USP is lost. The same way, the six year old Vajpayee government, though better in relative sense (vis-à-vis the current dispensation), came to be seen as a Congress clone. The result was a silent disassociation of its core support base and loss of its innate appeal to its natural constituency – the youth, the middle and the intermediate classes.

What we are seeing today is a manifestation of the same phenomenon. The AAP surge was powered by the youth, inspired by its promise to fight corruption. Today, the party is seen to have started adopting those very practices which it stood against – pandering to communal and casteist emotions, tokenism, readiness to grab loaves of office, willingness to compromise with corruption etc. The very vocal volunteers, who have invested so much in making the party a success, are even more vocally defending the party against criticism. The point is – for how long? AAP is running the risk of diluting its core plank of corruption and be seen as another clone of the Congress. If only its supporters realize even if the transgressing b****** is our b******, some course correction is required, for its own good and for the greater good of the country!

Maid, Diplomacy and Nationhood

With the Khobragade affair having had its moments under the sun for quite an extended period, it is unlikely that any further development in the case will be highlighted in the way her arrest was.

The facts of the case are pretty simple. An Indian diplomat was arrested for a crime, which by no stretch of imagination, can be considered so grave as to warrant the arrest. For once, the habitual anti-US jholawallahs were right in denouncing the US for its hypocrisy.  The US extends the principal of diplomatic immunity to a CIA agent who murders two people in Pakistan and to a Kenya based diplomat who kills people through rash driving, but declines it to the Indian diplomat on the spurious ground of the immunity being limited to ‘consular duties’.  This is duplicity enough. Period.

While commentators sympathetic to the current Government have gone ga-ga over its supposed muscular response in form of removing security barricades and withdrawing airport privilege passes, the issue has rent the curtain on many a disturbing practices and huge faultlines in public opinion.

If diplomatic relations are based on the principle of reciprocity, why exactly are the US and many other embassies offered such benefits which are not available to their Indian counterparts? The Indian Embassy in US does not even have a reserved car park forget about security barricades. Our ambassador, ex-president and serving ministers are patted down while even the family members of the US diplomatic staff seem to carry non-photographed transferrable security passes which allow them access to even restricted areas of our airports. They are allowed to run provision stores, import provisions and liquor duty free while our diplomats have none of these benefits. So, why and when did we start extending these ‘courtesies’ to those who do not reciprocate? Is it because, as some foreign affairs observers have suggested, that our establishment has huge interests in pandering to American policy makers – for Ivy League seats and plush jobs, green cards, citizenship etc for their children and their willingness to turn a blind eye to their money laundering activities from India? Even in the Khobragade affair, this lady is married to a US citizen.  A diplomat is expected to work for her country and place its interests first. How can a person, even if of impeccable integrity, be seen as working in an independent manner when her spouse is a citizen of the country she has to deal with? How was she even deputed to that country?

So far as our muscular response is concerned, how exactly does withdrawal of additional benefits count as reciprocal reaction? Maybe, it only requires a state dinner for some minister and all these benefits would be restored again!

India must be the only country in this world which has mutely stood by when its Diaspora has been trampled upon by much lesser Nations. In the last 65 years, Indians were expelled or made to leave many countries – Burma, Ceylon, Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya, Fiji, but each time our response was either empty bluster or stony silence. We are a Nation where even the highest court of the land does not find anything amiss in allowing white-skinned murderers to be released so that they can celebrate Christmas at home! When China transgresses and eats up our territory slowly, our only response is to pretend that such events never happened. Next we know, our Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers are falling our backwards to give more and more concessions to China. At the time then the NDA was in power, Colin Powell visited Delhi before landing in Islamabad to declare Pakistan a major non-NATO ally. He did not deem it important enough to inform the Indians of the impending declaration. Surprise, surprise – rather than the US trying to explain on why this piece of information was missed, we had the spectacle of Indian ministers and officials trying to drum up excuses for the US.

Is it any wonder that we get treated the way we are?

Unlike in past events where International slights had served to unite public opinion, the general reaction to Ms Khobragade’s arrest has been mixed. A large section of people seem to believe that the diplomat got her just desserts. Some have questioned the riches obtained by the diplomat and her father, seemingly much above their known sources of income, and see her arrest as karma. Many posts on social networking sites speak of the snootiness of the bureaucracy and how those who believed they were above the law, have been justly brought down to the ground.

Such comments are unfortunate for they do not talk of the same issue. The diplomat here is an official representative of India and her ill-treatment is, in many ways is symptomic of the host Nation’s contempt for India itself. The point on the individual belonging to a class which is seen as being haughty, corrupt and disdainful of law is a different issue altogether. Yet, if the general public is moving towards divorcing its identity from the artefacts of the Indian Nationhood, we are heading for much more disturbing times.

Only a couple of centuries back, western historians had noted with bewilderment, the indifference of the Indian peasant to his rulers.  In battle after battle, they would see the Indian peasants going around their daily routine, tilling their land, grazing their cattle, only miles away from the battlefield where the native forces were getting worsted. This state of affairs had come along for the Aam Aadmi of those days had recognised the rulers for what they were –a self indulgent, corrupt and parasitic lot. It hardly mattered to them if the name of that ruler changed. It was in this context that Goswami Tulsidas had commented – ‘Raja bhaye koi, hamra ki hani’, i.e., whosoever is the ruler, what difference does it make to my plight?

Maybe these are too early days and hopefully, our sense of Nationhood is more robust. But still, it would do good if the ruling classes understand that if the distance between the rulers and the ruled increases too much, there generally comes a day where there is nothing left to rule.

AAP aaye bahaar aayi

The election debacle of 1993, when the BJP could win only two of the five assemblies, was in effect a decisive turning point for Hindutva politics in India. Even though the BJP later broke new ground by forming the first saffron Government in Maharashtra, the reality of its limited geographical reach across vast swathes of the country, made the dream of a BJP Government seem very distant. True, the PV Narasimha Rao led Congress Government seemed thoroughly discredited in that summer of 1996, and all polls pointed to BJP becoming the single largest party in the Parliament; still, there seemed little chance of Atal Bihari Vajpayee becoming the Prime Minister, on account of the BJP’s ‘majestic isolation’. Hence, the act of the then President, Dr Shankar Dayal Sharma, in going by the rule-book and inviting Vajpayee to form the Government, was seen differently by different shades of opinions.

For the secular establishment, it was a travesty of constitutional politics that a party with no chance of obtaining majority being asked to form a Government, for the non-committed, an open invite to the worst forms of political bargaining, and for the BJP supporters & sympathizers, a shot at fulfillment of a decades old dream!

On a personal note, I recall watching the live telecast of the swearing in ceremony, with tears in my eyes. Those were of course, tears of joy for even though a BJP supporter ever since my political consciousness took shape, I had not really thought that a BJP Government was possible for the next many years. Many newspaper reports of those days record wild celebrations and emotions mirroring mine. In many ways, this swearing-in was a proof to people that the BJP, which promised hope, a different governance, could indeed come to power!

It was a short-lived government. Snide comments like ‘Inhone to sirf tareekh mein naam darz karane yeh sarkar banayee thi’, abound and many within the BJP had started talking about the ‘blunder’ and how it had harmed the image of the party.

Hindsight proved that forming that Government, even if for a fortnight, was a masterstroke. By providing the masses with a teaser of a full-fledged government and more importantly, proving that the BJP was a serious contender to power, BJP polled incremental votes from those who were unsure about it. The party’s vote-share, which hovered at around 20% in both the 1991 and 1996 polls, shot up to over 25% in 1998, which incidentally, remains its best showing till date.

How relevant is reminiscing on a decade and half old events?

Very much relevant, because, on a smaller scale, history was repeated at Ramlila Maidan on Saturday, December 28, 2013.

While some may compare the exploits of NTR with that of Arvind Kejriwal, the fact remains that the 1983 victory of Telugu Desam was driven on the wheels of a charismatic God-like personality, who promised to salvage the wounded Telugu pride. On the other hand, the Aam Aadmi Party was led by a virtually faceless individual with a campaign built around mundane issues of corruption and civic amenities, hardly the stuff which manage to arouse passion in voters.

Thank God that Arvind Kejriwal had more sense than the numerous ‘specialists’ found in abundance in television studios. Had he listened to them, he would have buried his movement many a times over: first when he co-shepherded the anti-corruption movement, second, when he launched his solo fast, again, when he launched his political party, once again, when he campaigned against high electricity tariffs, yet again when he decided to run against Sheila Dikshit, over again when he committed the ultimate sacrilege of asking people’s opinion on accepting Congress’s support! Many of these experts have denounced the last act to be a mockery of democracy. If democracy is indeed the will of the people it belies understanding on how can reaching out to people for their opinion be declared a mockery? Is it that we have become so attuned to being treated as vote-casting machines that any exercise of opinion in between those five years seems so much out of the ordinary?

Whatever be the story a few months or years down the lane, as of now, we have lived through a defining moment of our lives when a rank outsider, riding on support of those disdainfully dismissed as non-consequential, has achieved which only weeks back, seemed an impossible dream. As of now, it is difficult to visualize that politics, the way it is practiced will not undergo any change in the days to come.

Had it not been for the AAP, it is quite likely that the insipid Vijay Goel of the BJP would have won the race to the chief ministership. Given that its 15 years exile from power has been extended yet again, it s understandable that much of the BJP’s vitriol has now been directed towards the AAP. Perhaps it fears that the success of AAP, if replicated even on a limited manner Nationally, would seriously impair its quest for power.

What the BJP seems to be missing out is that its attacks on Arvind Kejriwal and AAP more and more resemble the establishment’s campaign against Narendra Modi. Many BJP sympathizers claim that Modi is despised more because he does not ‘belong’ to the inner circle and his coming would draw curtains on many a cosy arrangements within those hallowed groups. If a four term chief minister who had even otherwise spent decades in those byzantinian lanes of Delhi could be termed as an outsider, then someone like an Arvind Kejriwal could well claim to be an alien from the outer space!

If constant tirades, ill founded in logic were a weapon enough to sway voters, then BJP has certainly adopted the right strategy. However, if that be true, then the BJP risks losing much more as the Congress, JDU and many others have adopted precisely the same strategy against it.

The BJP would do well to recognize that the vote for AAP was not a vote against Congress alone. It was a strong rejection of the BJP as well. The masses who voted for AAP did so amidst genuine fears of a Congress comeback on account of the anti-Congress votes getting split in between the AAP and the BJP. That people took this risk in their stride should be a powerful enough indicator to the BJP top brass that in public imagination, it was seen as being in cahoots with the Dikshit Government. In the last 15 years of Delhi and the last 10 years at the Centre, what exactly has the BJP done to prove that it is truly an opposition party? Which major decision of the UPA has the BJP opposed and opposed till its logical conclusion? Its campaigns against the UPA have seemed half hearted and fought more in television studios and in form of Parliamentary disruptions, rather than getting manifest on the street, fighting for issues impacting the common man.

In the recently concluded Parliament session, the BJP had a good chance to bring down this Government by pushing for a no-confidence motion. But for reasons known only to a few, it decided that the Government had lost its ‘moral majority’ and hence was as good as out of power. Is it so? And now, when the UPA comes up with another fiscally disastrous budget/vote on account or manages to promulgate some anti national ordinances, can the BJP really claim that it was not a party to those acts?

An opposition which does not function like an opposition does not deserve to be ever in power. The BJP has a clear choice – of identifying the ‘enemy’ and going for its jugular or of falling back to the act of a loyal opposition. It cannot continue to act as if Nuclear Deal, 2G, Coal Scam, Vadra, CWG, Black Money, are issues one moment and non-issues the other. Blessed with such an opposition, is it a wonder that we have had UPA 1 followed by UPA 2?

In the next few months, the Nation too will have to weigh two choices when opting to boot out this disgrace of a Government; one – voting for a sub-optimal choice in form of the BJP, and two – of voting for AAP and many other parties who one believes are best suited to resolve the Nation’s issues.

If a large chunk of the electorate opts for the latter option, it would be fair to say that the Congress has a very high chance of returning to power. Neither AAP nor any other contender has even a truncated all-India presence and all these entities would find it much easier to prop up a Congress led Government. For all our faults, India certainly does not deserve a UPA 3 and it would be an understatement to call this a tragedy if it thus happens.  

It is for the BJP to decide if it wants to be perceived as a worthy alternate to the UPA. It is neither AAP nor any motley group of activists, but its own sense of hubris, which is standing in its way to power.

AAP and the BJP

'First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.'

MK Gandhi

If viciousness of attacks is borne out of intense fear then the fledgling Aam Aadmi Party clearly unnerved the BJP. For a party which had hoped that the public disgust with a grossly corrupt administration would make it a natural claimant to power, this pretender on the block came as a shock.

Once the growing buzz around AAP made it difficult for the BJP to maintain its haughty disdain for this gate-crasher, it unleashed the worst form of calumnious attacks on the former, ironically resembling the ad hominem attacks which it itself has till now been subject to from the ‘secular’ establishment. At one level, the BJP proclaims that shrill attacks on Narendra Modi, rather than impacting his popularity, enhances it. If that be the case, why has it adopted a similar line of offense against AAP?

No issue was too trivial to be raised, no stick to hollow to beat with - be it the supposed three voter registrations for Arvind Kejriwal, his so-called betrayal of Anna or the ‘wealth’ of the AAP candidates. Some leaders even tried to project the pendency of some criminal cases against AAP’s top leaders as a proof of the latter’s duplicity!

The BJP’s reaction to AAP has been more like that of a spoilt brat which believes that some usurper has snatched away its birthright. A little introspection would probably make it realize that AAP gained traction because the BJP spectacularly failed to fulfill its duties. That the BJP did not become a natural beneficiary of the Anna movement was symptomic of the middle class’s lack of trust in the party and its leaders. Those professionals, who are now volunteering for the AAP were at one time the natural constituency of the BJP and if they are no longer with it today, no one else but the BJP itself is to blame.

It is amusing that a supposed ‘right-of-centre’ party with an agenda to reform business and governance has an issue with some candidates being well off! Or is it that they believe that it glorious to be poor so long as they themselves do not lie among ‘glorified’ masses? Or is it that they believe that the middle and upper middle classes should not aspire to join politics at all?

The chatter around criminal cases against Arvind Kejriwal and a few other AAP leaders are yet again a warning to all those who bemoan the criminalization of politics simply because some ADR report lists the criminal cases against candidates. In our quest for instant solutions and our propensity to paint everything with the same brush, we miss the point that public agitations invariably result in criminal cases being lodged. If some sections of our public continue with this mindless quest of getting all people with any pending criminal cases debarred from contesting elections, we run the risk of turning the country into a completely closed cozy club, run by a handful of entities who will ensure that while their crimes never result in any complaints, any challenger gets defeated by the application of law.

True, the AAP is not God’s gift to India.

The way the party has used ‘participative psephology’ to increase its salience is hypocritical and amounts to befooling the public. Its agenda, to a very large extent, does not seem to differ from the Congress, so far as being a maai-baap sarkar is concerned. From being an ideology-agnostic party, it is slowly morphing into a me-too left-of-centre entity, ready to play the politics of appeasement with gusto. Rather than offering an institutional solution, it seems to be presenting a god in Arvind Kejriwal. And gods do not have a place in democracy.

But! It still is a party which is pushing for a strong legislation against corruption. It has a vision of public education and healthcare. It is probably the only party which talks somewhat about police reforms. And certainly the only party which does not talk of caste based reservations.

Most importantly, this is a party which carries the hope of those countless youngsters who have been working against all odds and canvassing for the party in Delhi. True, Delhi alone is not India and certainly AAP does not have similar presence across the country. But, is that reason enough to be contemptuous of those who believe that they can change India’s destiny with their efforts? 

The biggest risk which AAP runs today is its inability to live up to the hype on December 8. The vagaries of our Westminster style ‘first past the post’ system ensure that in a multi cornered contest, a party needs at least around 27%-30% of votes to come within sniffing distance of power. No one had given AAP a serious chance till they went around projecting survey results showing them on top. Unfortunately, for all the groundswell of support, the AAP may still come up short if that support does not translate into a sufficient number of votes. If the results are on expected lines, i.e., the AAP winning around 15-20% votes but failing to win more than 6-10 seats, there is a great risk of the party losing momentum and its core support base of the youth moving away from it.

With both the BJP and the Congress forming a part of the political establishment, there can be but little hope of any major reform in the way governance happens in our country. It is only when that an outsider makes an impactful entry in the political arena, can there be a real hope of a long lasting change in our polity. Yes, we run the risk of moving in a sub-optimal direction or more likely, getting unsettled by the nature of change. But, if status quo condemns us to entropy, then let there be change. If there were ever a vote cast for hope, let it be cast for this new kid on block.

Stringent Laws are not an Answer

The current fracas over Tarun Tejpal’s sexual misdemeanors and Justice (Retd) A K Ganguly’s alleged act of harassment have yet again shown that harsh laws, even when vehemently demanded by public, fail the test of natural justice.

For someone who has always believed that Tehelka was an illegitimate off-spring born out of a union of the rabid left with an intrinsically corrupt dynasty based political party, the fall of Tarun Tejpal would normally have evoked schadenfreude. While it is true that the despicable acts of an even more despicable Tejpal have justly brought about his long overdue fall, one cannot but ignore the relative harshness of the laws being sought to be applied to him.

What Tejpal did was not rape as it is commonly understood. At worst, it was a case of sexual assault compounded by his blatant misuse of authority. But, the law as it stands today categorises the crime as that of rape. With due respect to all - if molestation is as grave a crime as rape, then is penile rape only as grave as molestation?

The circumstances surrounding the case of Justice (Retd.) Ganguly are much more sad. An intern makes some allegations, long after the purported event had happened. Even though the Supreme Court displays quite some alacrity in forming a panel to probe the issue, the complainant further complains publicly that the probe panel looked at her with suspicion! One may wonder; again, with due respect to her trauma – was she really expecting that her allegations not be investigated and be taken as facts? Unfortunately, this is what she was expecting and being a lawyer, not so without reason. The laws and the string of judicial pronouncements governing such crimes have resulted in a situation that mere allegations suffice to pronounce a man guilty unless proven innocent.

Unfortunately, this tendency of the law to transgress principles of natural justice does not seem to be restricted to such crimes alone. Over the years, the Indian polity has shown a remarkable proclivity to legislate harsh statutes. If dowry couldn’t be socially fought, have draconian provisions like 498A; if casteism cannot be eradicated, have another law which puts the onus of proof of the accused; if foreign exchange cannot be managed, have a FERA, if terrorism cannot be fought, have a POTA or a MCOCA; if internal disturbances cannot be handled, have a MISA (thankfully scrapped) and if riots cannot be prevented, have a ‘Promotion’ of Communal Violence Bill.

The number of people acquitted by the courts, even when booked under the erstwhile TADA & POTA, even when so much so skewed against the accused only indicate that the laws were more abused than used. Will it then be unfair to deduce that a large number of convicts under these stringent acts were framed?

The aftermath of many events lead the public to ask for strict regulations. But, at times, getting what you ask for is dangerous. Laws which are designed such that they be open to abuse are dangerous and gnaw away at the existence of a well balanced society.

Laws where the State is handed unbound powers, where the onus of proof shifts to the accused and where the police have untrammeled rights over the accused simply indicate that the State has abdicated its responsibility to govern. 

The proverbial Chaupat Raja had enacted had the harshest laws possible in his kingdom. Those laws did not result in that Andher Nagari becoming either secure or progressive. Why should the end result be any different here if we continue on our quest for mindless laws?

Modi alone will not suffice

1990. It was a pleasant January evening. A solitary loudspeaker hung carelessly on a delicate pole, on the Jharsuguda parade ground, blared forth on the scheduled visit of Shri LK Advani at 5:30 pm the next day. Strangely, there was no other visible sign of this impeding visit by a VIP – no banners, no posters, no welcome arches. The day came; 5:30 became 6, then 7, then 8 and then 9. No sign of the leader nor any sign of a crowd. Had the leader had given the town a miss because of the lack of crowds?

Then, the calmness of that balmy night was broken by wailing of a cavalcade.  I rushed out just in time to make out the figure of a man with a shiny pate greeting people through his car window. In moments, the entire parade ground was packed to capacity, amazing when you consider the time of the day, the clear lack of mobilisation of people, and most critically, the absence of a half decent BJP party apparatus in the town.

But, the BJP lost the state elections which followed Advani’s visit.

Circa February 1998. Atal Bihari was to visit the town. He was then known as the 13 day Prime Minister and more importantly, the man India awaited. BJP had a strong presence now, bolstered even more by an alliance with the fledgling Biju Janata Dal. The town wore a festive look – festoons, arches, banners abound, the party apparatus was at full play; plying people by truckloads for the rally.  Vajpayee came and addressed the crowd in the same parade ground – less than a third filled!

This lack of crowds did not impact the vote. BJP won both the state and parliamentary elections from the said constituency.

How are these decades old experiences relevant today? They are relevant because even today, crowds may not translate into votes. In 1990, a curious public came to see a person who was unabashedly articulating the Hindu angst. They came, they saw, maybe they heard. But, then all went away and voted they way they used to vote.

Today, the BJP seems to run the risk of believing that the battle for Delhi is already won. After all, does Narendra Modi not attract unprecedented crowds even in areas where the BJP is not strong? True, he does. But how do we know that the crowds actually will translate into votes?

Swapan Dasgupta was once asked to comment on a very impressive BJP rally in Kerala. He said ‘the number of people present in the rally is precisely the number of voters for the BJP’.  Maybe Swapan was being a little snarky, but the truth of his comment cannot be denied. Today, the BJP has gambled on attracting voters through a spectacle. These rallies, with all due respect to people attending them, are huge event management exercises, where people are mobilised from length and breadth of the state. This is not at all to say that the crowds comprise of people who get paid to attend them. On the contrary, they do comprise largely of BJP supporters sold on the dream of Modi delivering India from the evil UPA.  The moot point to ponder here is whether those rallies are a confluence of the converted or if they do attract those atheists who come, see, hear, get converted and develop an evangelical zeal?

In 1993, the BJP was riding high. Its stock in the Hindi heartland was particularly soaring post the reclamation of Ramjanmabhoomi only months back. With a swagger in their steps, BJP leaders went around claiming that unlike other parties, they had delivered what they promised. It seemed that victory in the 5 state assemblies were a given. Aaj Paanch Pradesh, kal poora desh, went the slogan.  But, the results were something different, very different. The BJP lost Madhya Pradesh and Himachal while winning Delhi and only narrowly scraping through in Rajasthan. The shocker though was the party’s loss in UP where it lost around 45 seats despite a 3% jump in its votes. Not only were the 1993 losses were a body blow to political Hindutva, they reinforced the understanding that public passion, unless channelized effectively, is no match to a well oiled party machinery.

Today, while there is a visible feeling of disgust with the UPA, there still does not seem to be a corresponding goodwill for the BJP. And why should there be? In the last decade, the BJP has not acted like if it were indeed willing to confront the UPA and stand for the common man. Except for some token protest in television studios and ineffectual grandstanding in the parliament, the BJP as an opposition party has been invisible.  Can the support for Modi, even if as large as it is being made out to be, prevail over voter reluctance to opt for an insipid BJP? 

For the sake of the Nation, this Government needs to go and if Narendra Modi is the vehicle of this deliverance then by all means should Narendra Modi win. But, the BJP will need to do much more than to simply hope that crowds in rallies are a sure shot indicator of voter preferences.