Show me the man...and I will show you the Law

A group of people commit murder and mayhem. A friend of theirs knows of the plans and helps them to safekeep the arms and ammunition meant for this act and in the process treats himself to some of the grenades and an assault rifle. Another person, a woman, handles these arms before they finally reach this fiend.

The slaughter done, the henchmen move away to safer lands while this friend remains their friend.  Unfortunately, the police sniff out the perpetrators and this friend too gets implicated, arrested and jailed. Only, this friend happened to be a Bollywood star, son of successful Bollywood stars who transitioned as successful politicians. So, not very long after his incarceration, he gets bail while most of the others apprehended for either committing, abetting or having knowledge of this carnage deservedly continue to serve time in prison.

Curiously, while all the other accused including the woman handler were convicted under TADA, this son of destiny was convicted only under Arms Act, which ensured that the punishment handed out to him would be lesser in quantum. Then, the highest court of this land reduced quantum of his punishment to the bare minimum prescribed under law! But worse was to come – his Bollywood fraternity striking up a powerful chorus in his support; politicians falling over each other to hand out good character certificates for him and an ex Supreme Court judge, now more famous than he ever was, pleading for clemency on grounds of his playing a role in some movie on Mahatma Gandhi! It probably escaped this ex-distinguished gent that this same accused had played a criminal in many of his movies. Does that mean that he be punished for those celluloid crimes?

Sympathising with a person is one thing but trying to unduly influence public policy is a different ballgame altogether. In the instant case, a pardon to this criminal will mean that each and every convict be pardoned for each of them has spent many more years in prison and have undergone as much, if not more of mental agony in the twenty year long conviction process. Even more seriously, this pardon would mean that there would be very few crimes which would demand punishment. For, on the scales of justice, few crimes committed by individuals would equal the act of a war unleashed on unsuspecting civilians, destroying lives of those who died and those who survived. Why should a roadside rowdy or a bootlegger then be punished when his crimes pale into insignificance when compared to this carnage?

The saving grace of this nauseating spectacle of the elite and the ruling classes conspiring to help out of their own is the visible lack of public support for this ill-advised drive. For a Nation prone to deifying celluloid heroes and vapid sportsmen, it is remarkable that not only are there no processions of fans demanding pardon, online discussion forums and comment boards across the web display a rare unanimity of opinion in wanting the sentence to be executed.

Public opinion is notoriously fickle but for now, it seems to be the only bet which may prevent the elite from playing with the law yet again.

For details of Sanjay Dutt’s role in the blasts, read here

Capital Punishment: Death by Pronouncement

The recent executions of two terrorists convicted of waging a war against the Nation have raised multiple questions. One, whether these executions were just and the second larger question, whether capital punishment as a concept should continue in the country? While it would be easy to paint the abolitionists as loonies who have unfortunately come to dominate public discourse in India, a cursory study of evolution of death penalty over the ages would strengthen the argument that reducing barbarity of this punishment should follow the course of civilization.

Death penalty has been observed to be a part of the legal system of almost all societies since the dawn of civilization. Perusal of historical tales of any land speak of executions conducted in gut wrenching manners - through the breaking wheel, boiling / burning to death, flaying, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement, crushing (including crushing by elephant), stoning, sawing, decapitation, devoured by hungry beasts, forced drowning, throwing over a cliff, blowing on a cannon and still many other forms which are too grotesque to record. Not infrequently, these executions were public spectacles with remains of the executed getting quartered and hung across various points of the city as a warning to other potential mischief makers.

Today, civilisational progress has ensured that except for a few societies, executions are more ‘humane’ now. However, while the case for reducing barbarity of executions finds a large general acceptance, the same is not true with the case for abolition of capital punishments altogether.

Quite often, executions are condemned as being infinitely worse than murder. In words of Albert Camus, the Nobel Prize winning author and proponent of ‘absurdism':

“An execution is not simply death. It is just as different from the privation of life as a concentration camp is from prison. [...] For there to be an equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life”

The premises which Camus and other abolitionists follow are:

·        Execution is murder by another name

·        Rather than redressing the previous crime, it adds to it

·        Demand for death penalty is nothing but a cry for revenge

·        The absence of details of the execution (on how the criminal suffered) in public discourse, is a manifestation of our subliminal revulsion at administered death

While it may be tempting to summarily dismiss the above objections as being personal beliefs of people who dwell in a make believe ideal world, each of the points raised deserve careful consideration.

It is not difficult to in principle agree with the assertion that net result being the same, i.e., extinguishment of life, executions can indeed be equated to murders. It is the second premise however, which shows the limits to this similarity. A non-judicial murder is generally driven by motives of a gain (personal or for a larger cause) together with the desire to inflict grievous harm on the victim. An execution, on the other hand is punishment for a crime which was heinous enough to distort the principles of human existence.

Likewise, while it cannot be effectively denied that death penalty is a form of revenge, this acceptance does not negatively impact the desirability of executions to be conducted for the simple reason that justice has to be consequential, retributive and restorative (wherever possible). If revenge is to be frowned upon, it would be difficult to argue in favor of any form of punishment; even a rap on the knuckles as punishment, by its very nature is a form of revenge.

Camus’s arguments on the ‘silence’ surrounding executions are factually correct but seem to confuse its causal relation with the latter. Murders are repulsive and it is natural that normal human beings would find the spectacle of death abhorrent. Except for those instances, where enlightened souls give up their lives, having ritualistically abjured food, death is rarely, if ever, a pretty sight. In case of death penalties, the sadness of death and disgust which it evokes co-exists with the general relief that the execution followed a just retributive process! It is here where a strong case exists to find more humane means of administering death so that our natural urge to adhere to humane boundaries get addressed.

The basis arguments on death penalty rest on the premises that fundamentally, execution is a form of Judicial Murder and stands in violation of basic Human Rights. 

As indicated earlier, executions are certainly killings for they are judicially legitimized acts of extinguishment of human lives. However, this reality does not ipso facto make capital punishment abhorrent. While there can be little doubt that the Right to Life is a basic universal right, premise that Human Life is inviolable under any circumstance has doubtful validity. Killing in valid instances of self defense is considered generally acceptable. Many societies accept controlled euthanasia as valid and more commonly, abortion of an unborn fetus is both legal and valid. Lest such comparison be seen as unseemly, due cognizance must be taken of the fact that these instances too violate what is otherwise believed to be inviolable. Particularly inexplicable is the status of abortion where the State sanctions a killing not because of any crime the unborn has committed, but because the parent(s) of the unborn do not desire that birth to happen. It is more even more inexplicable that in the debate on Capital Punishment, the abolitionists are generally those in favor of abortive ‘rights’ while the otherwise pro-lifers speak in favor of executions!

Moving beyond comparisons, if one were to evaluate Judicial execution on its own merit, it becomes necessary to account for various principles governing the concept of justice which defines it to be ‘retributive’ – punishment should be proportionate to the crime, be justly imposed and considered as morally correct. Not only does this principle appear intuitively fair, another factor which strengthens the case for retribution is the reality that civilization and rule of law means that the State takes over responsibility for ensuring safety and well being of ordinary citizen and the latter recourses to the State defined mechanisms to seek redress rather than taking up an avenger or a vigilante role. The intensity and depravity of all crimes are not equal and there are crimes innumerate where anything less than the death of the convict fail to meet the tests of fairness and equity. 

Finally, on whether Capital Punishment is a deterrent; contentions and questions on its deterrence value are irrelevant for unlike in nature where consequence of any act is pre-determined and certain, there is no certainly of punishment being inflicted for any crime. The person who commits a crime, irrespective of its magnitude, invariably does so with a belief that he will escape the consequences of punishment. If however, retribution, divine or man-made was to follow each lapse, the human civilization would be spared the need of maintaining an expensive and an only partially effective apparatus of law enforcement and justice. Presence of a large number of laws dealing with an even larger number of crimes is a potent proof that existence of laws and punishments has only a limited deterrent value. The course of justice cannot be served by not punishing convicted criminals only because there could be others who have escaped the dragnet of law.  Hence, if a person, after being through a due process of law, is found guilty of committing a crime so heinous that none other than death penalty is a proportionate punishment, the punishment, howsoever abhorrent it may seem to a few, must be carried out!

An Indian Phenomenon?

A woman is within her rights to refuse intercourse with her husband if she has already borne him sons or wants to lead a pious life or is barren or has given birth to still-born or is beyond her fertile age {3.2.45}

A wife may abandon her husband if he has a bad character or is away from home for a long time in a foreign country or is a traitor to the King or threatens the life of his wife or is declared an outcast,or becomes impotent {3.3.48}

A husband who falsely accuses his wife of not sleeping with him is to be punished {3.3.14}

A man raping a prostitute is to be fined 12 panas {4.13.38}

Each participant in the gangrape of a prostitute is to be fined 24 panas {4.13.38}

A man raping a woman living by herself is to be fined 100 panas {3.3.16}

A man raping a girl who has achieved puberty is to have his middle and index finger cut off {3.3.14}

A man raping a pre-pubescent girl is to have his hand cut off or a fine of 400 panas {4.12.1,2}

A man raping a woman already betrothed is to have his hand cut off or a fine of 400 panas {4.12.3,5}

If the girl dies as a result of rape, the rapist is to be put to death {4.12.1,2}

Special punishment for city guards who misbehave with a woman

A man wrongly accusing a woman of not being virgin is to be fined 200 panas and shall lose the right to marry her {4.12.15-19}

Verses from The Arthashastra. Translated by LN Rangarajan. Penguin Books 1992

Right from the epic age, the act of violating a woman against her will was considered amongst the most heinous of crimes and people committing such crimes were considered akin to those outside the pale of civilization. Till even a century and a half back, it was not unheard of clans upon clans sacrificing themselves to protect the honour of a solitary woman. To violate a virgin was a heinous crime and so was doing so to a married woman. Our tales of the old are replete with both instances of severe punishments following such crimes and of the society collectively rising up to avenge moral trespasses and to protect the honour of their womenfolk

It is hence, surprising that the rising incidence of rape has been attributed by many to the sick Indian mindset. Byte and megabytes have been used by the usual cabal of left wing commentators in trying to prove that rapes are a logical corollary to the Indian Religion, its male worshipping fetish, its ‘penile code’, its misogyny and so on. True, Indian society is not perfect by any stretch of imagination. India, particularly in its post medieval period has seen all sorts of heinous atrocities committed on its womenfolk  - forced sati, abandonment, sexual exploitation of widows, perpetual dependent status and so on. Our social reformers of this period admitted the shortcomings of Hindu society and then tried to redress them. Today, we are faced with two extreme positions – one which seeks to blame every evil on our societal norms and the other which pretends that such evils are a ‘gift’ of the western civilization.

It thence is a little sickening to find commentators gleefully attributing blame for such atrocities on women on Indian notion of masculinity and our misogyny. Some more circumspect personalities have chosen to blame sexual repression and falling gender ratio as the triggers for rise in these crimes. At the other end of the spectrum are those worthies who choose to blame the victim, her dress, co-education, mobiles and any other totem of modernity. 

Not even the most virulent of critics of all things traditional would probably go so far as to claim that rapes are only an Indian phenomenon. The number of rapes, both absolute and per lakh of population, which get reported in far more egalitarian and liberated of societies, Sweden, France, UK US, New Zealand et al are much higher than similar incidence in India. The city of London alone records some 3,000 rapes per annum. Each of these countries have a sex ratio which is higher than 1, have strong law protection and enforcement systems, have higher women participation in workforce and legislature and most significantly, are considered ‘progressive’ as far as all definitions of modernity and sexual liberation are concerned. So, these countries already have reached a level long back, which in the views of many worthies, would free India of the ‘rape’ phenomenon.

On the other extreme, any attempt to equate rape with a by-product of clothes, education et al needs to be dismissed right at the outset. If this were true, we would never see kids, children, senior citizens, nuns and sadhvis violated. Nor would we see any case where demure, ghunghat or hizab wearing, illiterate/ semi-literate tradition upholding women getting abducted and dishonoured.

However, like most human behaviors, no single factor can at all times be said to be the trigger or the cause behind sexual assaults. While there cannot be an instant linkage in between the crime and culture, sociologists and policy makers must analyze if the overt recourse to sex and sexual appear in popular culture, right from sports to entertainment, from personal products to consumer goods, have resulted in a situation where a hyper-sexualised individual constantly, even if sub-consciously scans for opportunities where gratification could be achieved!

Similarly, like with any other crime, the probability of a sexual assault getting committed are higher if the perpetrator feels that he can get away with it. Are strict laws an answer? Probably no, because the criminal fhere eels that firstly he won’t be apprehended and if he does get caught, there is little likelihood of he getting convicted. On the other hand, if there is a certainty that crime will be followed by punishment, the intending perpetrator is more likely to give up the idea of committing the crime. Countries like Congo, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Panama, Bolivia, all with dysfunctional law enforcement systems see high instances of sexual assault. Likewise, sexual assaults happen much more in lands ravaged by wars and riots, the common factor between all the above being absence of law enforcement. Rape is about enforcing power, a power to violate and this can be exercised only when the perpetrator feels both powerful and secure enough to commit this crime.

Harsh laws and an uncritical reliance on an alleger’s complaints are no substitute to a robust criminal justice system. Across cultures, violation of a woman’s right over her body has been recorded along with other crimes like murder and plunder, right from the dawn of civilization and there is little reason to believe (even if we all would like to), that such inhuman acts can be eliminated altogether. In an ideal world, we would not need doors in our houses but the moneys spent on security systems are testimony to use living in a non-ideal world. State protection, thence, cannot be a substitute for a reasonable effort on self-preservation.

Most importantly, let us bring strive to back a little morality and stop trying to search for mitigating reasons for crimes. There cannot be a reason good enough to violate someone’s honour. Unlike what the Hon’ble Supreme Court opines, a drunkard committing rape is not someone who knows not what he does. He drinks before assaulting for the drink reinforces the false sense of power he possesses. For a little regression please!

No – You are not allowed to have an opinion!

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Evelyn Beatrice Hall, (1868 – after 1939) on Voltaire

If Sagarika Ghose will ever be remembered, it is likely for her coinage of the term Internet Hindu. In no time, this moniker was adopted by those journalists & commentators who had been finding it more and more difficult to counter opinions, queries and comments posed by people who seemed to be educated, well off, passionate of their beliefs and impatient of what they saw as a duplicitous and insensitive approach of the Government and chattering classes to their concern. With a pejorative for those, who could otherwise not be castigated as Fascists or Nazis, the commentators now had a ready term of reference to all those who dared questioning them on matters of Nationalism and Secularism (the way it is practiced in India)

One might argue that a moniker is not pejorative by default. Certainly - but only when it is adopted by the concerned Group/Individual itself. If awarded by others, particularly those who stand at the opposite spectrum, monikers are by default, pejorative. There is nothing endearing about the terms knickerwallah, behenji types, babalog or faggot; the same holds true for the term Internet Hindu.

But why this disdain for such people? After all, it is the same ilk of intellectuals who proclaim their right to speak the unpalatable ‘truth’. Truth may be as they see it, but for others having a different frame of reference, that ‘truth’ may be very different. So, why do otherwise civilized people practice this apartheid and untouchability to those who hold diverse views? Why do those, who believe that they have the special right to question, to comment and to sermonize, react with visceral hatred towards those who dare question and comment on them?

An easy explanation would be - mere intellectual snobbery. Since people who question and opine do not belong to the hallowed privileged circles to which the questioned belong, outrage is the natural expression of the latter who feel trespassed upon! Result is invectives galore! A question may arise on how can people gain access to these circles of privilege? Not easy certainly; for birth, upbringing and schooling, which provides one with reference-able connections is a must. The other requirement is mirroring of articulated opinions. If it seems too far fetched, a cursory look at the process by which Ramchandra Guha was anointed with celebrity-hood should put Doubting Thomas’s to rest. Guha is today recognized as amongst the front ranking modern historians and a leading intellectual of our times. Hence, to no surprise, the ubiquitous Mr Guha can be found holding forth on a variety of topics, both in the print and visual media and seminars of all sorts, where he is introduced as a leading historian.

Nothing wrong in that. Mr Guha has indeed written a well received book ‘India After Gandhi’ (Ref Reviews). Quite a turn from being an unknown scholar of Cricket and someone whose formidable aunt Dharma Kumar, had apparently despaired of (Ref: Foreword - Civil Lines). However, Mr Guha is not a trained Historian. He graduated from St. Stephen's College with a BA degree in Economics in 1977 and completed a Master's degree from the Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi. He then enrolled at the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta (for a Fellowship program (equivalent to a Ph.D) on the social history of forestry in Uttaranchal, focusing on the Chipko movement.

Before I am accused of being cussed in finding issues with an honorific, let me please refer to the instances of SR Goel and Koenraad Elst. These names may not ring familiar to most except for the intelligentsia and a small section of the Internet Hindus. Koenraad Elst is a Belgian who has written extensively on the Hindu Nationalist movement and history of medieval India. Elst graduated in Indology, Sinology and Philosophy at the Catholic University of Leuven and went on to obtain a Ph.D. from the same university on Hindu revivalism and Hindu reform movements. Goel graduated in History and was a Persian and Sanskrit Scholar. He leveraged his skills in producing a formidable body of work, quite of lot of which were self published. In spite of their importance to the Nationalist narrative, neither of them is given the honorific of a Historian. The reason offered – ‘They are not history scholars, they did not train under a professional historian, their work is not peer reviewed…’

Certainly they are more qualified than Mr Guha to write on history by virtue of their education and entire  body of work. But being outsiders, they are grudgingly introduced as 'writers' and not 'historians', the way Mr Guha is. Readers are requested to also refer to RISA Lila. This seminal piece by Rajiv Malhotra succinctly explains the power play which defines the academia narrative.

As we can see, reasons get invented to exclude rather than to include. The bogey of Internet Hindu has been raised on account of two reasons. One – those who question do not belong; Two, there is no better way to discredit those who question by attributing motives and demeaning them. The latter serves two purposes, firstly, queries from those who are seen as discredited do not merit a response. Secondly, a pejorative image will deter others from joining this hated group.

The rage of Guhas and Ghoses of the world are difficult to understand. The so-called Internet Hindus are merely expressing those opinions which they believe have been smothered by the mainstream media. Most of these comments choose to challenge and seek answers from those who have cartelized public discourse in our country. True, some of it may be abusive but is internet abuse limited to the Nationalist alone? Pursue any forum and you will find that invectives spout from even those who claim to swear by Indian secularism.

Why then this demonization of the Right? In one of his chapters of his recent book, excerpts of which were published in Outlook, Guha has launched a broadside against whosoever comments on his works in less than flattering a manner. Guha has neatly compartmentalized such reactions as being either being hurt, complaining, angry, paranoid, or abusive. While abusive comments are certainly not welcome, Mr Guha complaints encompasses even those comments which are hurt, complaining, angry or paranoid. Even with regards to abuse, quite a few of the comments which he presents as being abusive are benign when compared to his instant act of branding the 'others' as lesser people. For a person ostensibly belonging to an enlightened tribe where caste does not exist, Mr Guha doesn’t desist from giving a caste to this breed of Internet Hindus. By his definition, they are invariably Upper Caste. Even if this were to be true, how does it de-legitimise their right to offer their opinion on something published/presented for public consumption? If mere caste was a criterion, then our entire independence movement could be dismissed as mere expression of an upper caste upper class angst. While the post 1857 Independence movement till before early twentieth century almost exclusively upper caste, upper class in nature, even the later leaders of this movement generally belonged to the upper crust of society. Not surprisingly, for in any society, movements for change are led by groups which have an accumulated social capital and have a greater access to resources.

The last two decades have seen the space for Nationalist Hindu narrative shrinking. Unlike the 80s and the early 90s, when a host of intellectuals had no qualms in articulating the Rightist ideological thoughts, the last decade in particular has seen a rapid desiccation of such works. The constant demonization and vilification of those who adhere to and articulate a polity at odds with the Nehruvian view of India has resulted in a scenario where the average Nationalist has no option but to recourse to Internet to present his thoughts. Faced with the prospect of battling a disparate leaderless group of people who were confident and analytical enough to question incisively, the likes of Ghose and Guha have resorted to McCarthyism. While Ghose’s fulminations on the tribe of Internet Hindus can only be of limited impact, the intellectual spin given by the likes of Guha are dangerous for they serve to limit our expression to what has been defined as ‘proper’ by the intelligentsia. This intelligentsia has decreed to itself, the right to define, to allege, to judge and to execute. Any uncomfortable question gets declared as abuse and anyone who does not conform, a reactionary.

While consistency was never a strong point for our intelligentsia, they having developed greater confidence in their ability to mould the ‘acceptable’, have jettisoned any pretense of maintaining a ‘balance’ in the narrative.

A column, a book, a quote, an interview – all are meant for public consumption. The general public has a right to like or dislike, accept or reject a viewpoint. How and why are then these two groups treated so differently? Why cannot the commentators accept that both bouquets and brickbats go hand in hand and demonizing those who offer brickbats only, indicates a stunted intellectual growth of the able commentator. A normal and reasonable people would respect the right of others to possess and to articulate contrary opinions. If a significant section of the population feels that the mainstream discourse is not reflective of his/her concerns, why not allow and encourage those forums where they can make themselves heard and in many’s words ‘to vent their spleen’? Did not the British Government act as a mid-wife for the Indian National Congress precisely for the same reason? But no, if Mr Guha and others of his tribe have their way, no such forum is to be provided to anyone who digresses from what has been defined for thought and for speech.

Once, people who disagreed with the Church were declared heretics and burnt on the Cross. With such act snot being possible today, the next best approach of intellectual lynching has been successfully adopted by large sections of our opinion makers. Declare a person a Fascist, a Nazi, a reactionary, a conservative, a fundamentalist, a fanatic and now, an Internet Hindu, and you are now secure from the duty of answering any question, howsoever uncomfortable it might be.

The saga of calumny and vilification of alternate viewpoints by Guha and his ilk hits the very basis of our democracy for the end intent of these acts are to define and control our thoughts. It may be interesting to note that while this intelligentsia has virtually asked for banning of the Internet Hindu from public consciousness, majority of these Internet Hindus have only asked for debates and answers and not a banishment of the Ramchandra Guhas of the world. But do the torch-bearers of this ideology of hate and exclusion realize that? For them, only one commandment matters: No – You are not allowed to have an opinion!

But we are against you…

‘De mortuis nil nisi bonum’ - ”Speak no ill of the dead”

Social niceties across civilizations over the world dictate that any accused be given a chance to defend himself in face of allegations posed by others. Since the dead cannot, for obvious reasons, defend themselves against any stain on their honor, speaking ill of the dead is frowned upon. For many, death is a sort of redeemer and no eyebrows are raised when even the most evil get eulogized in their funeral services.

At the same time, evil that men do outlives them. This holds truer for people in the public eye and even more so, for leaders of men. For such people, neither the general public nor posterity is so kind so as to whitewash their acts of omission and commission. Hence, it is not unusual to find sharp, acrid obituaries for the more known and the lesser liked.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that Indian media-persons and commentators strongly believe in honoring the memory of the dead. More often than not, media commentary following timely or untimely death of a known personality unleashes a barrage of features, all with a simple underlining message – that the deceased was next to an angel personified, all the virtues which could possibly be attributed to humans, nay, superhumans, co-existed peacefully within that small earthly frame of the dead and lastly, the void caused by that death would never be fulfilled.

So, even a VP Singh got positive press coverage when he died, a Jyoti Basu became the most non-communist Communist ever and a YSR became the proverbial messiah in their respective deaths.

But surprisingly, or not that much so, these social niceties do not get extended to those who are seen as ploughing the right-of-centre furrow. The obituaries on K Sudarshan remained focused on his run-ins with Vajpayee while those on Bhairon Singh Shekhawat focused on his feud with RSS and with Vasundhara Raje Scindia. Hence, media reactions to Bal Thackeray’s illness and subsequent death did not come as a surprise.

It did not take long for the media’s initial expressions of disdain to change to astonishment when an hitherto unseen number of people paid their humble and heartfelt homage to Thackeray. Soon, we had some commentators sniping on how the numbers could not really compare with the crowds for Gandhi, Nehru et al for Mumbai was much more populated now or that Mumbai closed out of fear rather than respect. These statements are quite amusing when you consider that the English Language Media alongwith the Lokmat Group has consistently maintained for the last decade or so that the Tiger was toothless, that his writ did not run even within Matoshree or simply that he no longer ruled Mumbai.

It took the arrest of a couple of girls under the UPA Government amended IT Act for the media to heave a sigh of relief. For it was now that they could go back to their Thackeray – Sena bashing without guilt. Did not the arrest of the those girls represent the true fascist face of Sena? It is sickening, but the media seems to have missed a couple of points:

·        A formal complaint was lodged by Sena office bearers against the girls under provisions of the newly amended IT Act. These amendments were proposed and passed by the UPA Government to curb dissent. Sena, the BJP or the RSS were not a party to this decision. The Sena office bearers merely took recourse to a clause which the law of our land had provided them

·        The act of arrest and subsequent imprisonment was not Sena’s but of the police and lower judiciary. Since it can be agreed that neither of these wings are immune to political interference, it is UPA which rules Maharashtra. Any culpability should lie on them and not on Sena for the arrests

Now, vandalisation was certainly reprehensible and the guilty should be punished in the strictest possible manner. But, yet again, one is stuck by a contrast – the sympathetic, empathetic tone adopted by these very commentators when a huge Muslim mob rioted, vandalized National icons and destroyed public property for something which had ostensibly happened in Myanmar vis-à-vis the visceral hatred displayed for Sena men who were still emotional following the death of their demi-god only a day back!

It is ironical but the post on account of which the girls suffered was innocuous and factual. It had nothing on Bal Thackeray but on Mumbai’s closing down. Why did the Sena have to react to this post when very clearly, the cyberspace was replete with celebratory posts of ghoulish joy on passing away of this man? Very clearly, the goons who ransacked the clinic of this girl’s uncle did a great disservice to the memory of their departed leader while rendering yeomen service to the anchors who, disturbed with a city remaining calm could now proclaim with glee – ‘Look, we told you so!’

It is sad that the ghastly display of joy at the demise of a human being goes unabated today. Going back a little, history cannot deny that in the days preceding his killing, Gandhi had begun to be seen by large section of the Indian population in general and the Hindu refugees in particular, as the epitome of all what was wrong with the policies of our leaders. As documented in ‘Freedom at Midnight’, refugees and locals alike took out processions condemning Gandhi and chanting ‘Let Gandhi die’ when he was on his last ‘fast unto death’. Yet, the Nation united in grief when he fell to bullets fired by an assassin. The same people who were baying for his blood till the other day, beat their breasts and joined his funeral procession! Thackeray was no Gandhi by any stretch of imagination. But certainly, celebrations on his death could at least be postponed till the embers of his pier had cooled?

But no – we Indians are prone to hyperbole and proliferation of media networks has presented us with a galaxy of hyperventilating commentators who seem to possess a bewildering degree of self righteousness. For them, Thackeray was nothing more than a mass murderer, a Pol Pot, an Indian Fuehrer, a Fascist and a lumpen thug. They of course could care little that the objects of comparison are those who killed millions of innocents in their madness. These commentators have nothing but contempt for the average Maharashtrian who adored Bal Thackeray. They could not, for even a moment comprehend that such adoration could be built only on some sound foundation. They could see the following, they could never see the angst that made them his followers. For his followers and admirers, he was a Nationalist who even when talking of Maharashtrian pride, thought of the country first. He was the one who made it possible for the Kashmiri exiles to get into institute of higher education in Maharashtra. A leader who stood by the acts of his boys on December 6, 1992; a firm believer of one creed, who was resolute in his opposition to the Mandal Commission, one who made a practicing Brahmin the Maharashtra Chief Minister when his entire following comes from Marathas and the OBCs. A man who made it possible for the Mumbai Hindu community to survive in face of vicious rioting by organized Muslim mobs and the underworld.

The average follower of Bal Thackeray is well aware of his limitations, his shortcomings as a leader and why exactly he was not someone who was indeed a Great Maratha. He does not see Bal Thackeray as a modern day Shivaji, a Baji Rao, a Nana Phadanwis or a Lokmanya Tilak. He recognizes Bal Thackeray as a leader who vocalized his angst and the one who, made his survival a little more possible.

But, this capacity to evaluate Bal Thackeray for what he represented as a whole is missing in those who have and are demonizing him. If only they could see that this person from the eyes of those sullen masses who resent this uni-dimensional demonization of their icon!

But how can they, when leading lights of proclaim that ‘…I have *never* sought theoretical balance on issues of secularism (sic) & politics of hate (sic)’

Lessons from America – Part 2; UPA 3?

When the UPA returned to power with an enhanced majority in 2009, very few except for the die-hard optimists in the opposition were surprised. While there certainly were very valid reasons as to why the UPA should have lost those elections, there was no credible reason as to why the BJP should have been returned to the throne of India. The carefully drafted but low key campaign probably did little to infuse the voters’ confidence in the BJP’s promises. So, not only did they vote for the UPA in droves, they punished the BJP such that both the latter’s vote share and seats touched their lowest levels in over 6 General Elections.

Five years back, the BJP believed that voter anger over inflation and internal security would bring it back to power. Today, it believes that voter anger over inflation and corruption would do the needful. Then, the BJP had won state elections in Jharkhand, Punjab, Uttarakhand, Himachal & Gujarat while losing miserably in Uttar Pradesh and the Presidential polls; almost the same state of affairs prevail today. Then, Rajnath Singh was seen as a Sangh appointee fighting the Delhi-4 coterie  while today, Nitin Gadkari is seen a Sangh appointee, fighting his battles with the Delhi-4 + 1.

Well, the BJP lost in 2009. It may very well be on course to losing 2014 too.

The USA too had a spectacle of a President whose performance could be rated mediocre at best and lousy at the worst. Still, the incumbent returned to power on the basis of a sharp campaign and identity based politics. For all the talk about economy being the prime motivator for people, the electorate finally voted on identity and Government doles.

In a democracy the loser is ripped multiple times – first by the voter and then by sundry analysts, who manage to find flaws in every iota of the loser's existence - his dress, his speech, what he said, what he did not say and so on. Though harsh on the loser, there is hardly any alternative to such analysis for those who wish to don the role of challengers in the next elections. So, it would do well for the BJP to analyse the 2012 US Presidential polls for its course correction.

• The GOP was cautious in its approach. Believing that the elections are ripe for picking, it kept its campaign focus on economy and was careful to avoid any reference to anything which could potentially turn off independent voters. It succeeded in a way for it managed to attract a majority of the independent voters. However, overall it failed because it allowed the Democrats to set the agenda for elections. There would hardly be any election where the party which has failed to set an agenda won. Be it the 2004 or 2008 US polls or our very own General elections right from 1952. True, 2004 for us was an aberration but that is what it was. BJP seems to have forgotten that its election victories in the 1990s were not won in television studios and cameo street demonstrations – those were the results of carefully crafted, long drawn mass connect and education programs. In each of those elections, the BJP attacked and presented an alternate vision, forcing other parties to react. Where is that BJP now?

• The GOP discounted the forces of identity. Believing that the core group of Obama voters would no longer be as excited as they were in 2008, the GOP calculated that its outreach would be sufficient fto seal a victory. But wrong they were. Similarly, egged on by many, most outside but some within, the BJP seems to have started believing that the average Muslim will not vote for the UPA in an emphatic manner and because no consequent anti BJP consolidation will happen, BJP will sail to victory basis its core and some additional votes. Well, if 2012 UP assembly election results have not been sufficient to disprove this theory, then nothing will. For good or for bad, Muslims will not vote for the BJP in any scenario and in any General Election, they will vote for Congress lest BJP comes to power. The average Muslim may be disillusioned with Congress and may really want to vote for any of the Muslim League clones. But, he is also wise enough to know that till these clones develop into an agenda defining force, he will have to make good with the second best, which happen to be the Congress and its allies

• The GOP discounted the importance of voter mobilisation. In words of a Republican campaign strategist; “…the droves who came to vote for Obama, we did not even know that many of them existed” What use is of latent voter sentiment if it does not get translated into electoral votes on polling day? The BJP may believe that it represents the emotions and reasons of a vast upper class, middle class, upper caste, OBC, tribal constituency but if it cannot get this constituency to come out and vote on the polling day, the day will be carried by groups who vote in numbers disproportionate to their share of population. Let us do a quick calculation. Some 80% of the Indian population is supposedly Hindu. Assuming that the same percentage applies to its electorate too, we have around 80% Hindu electorate. Say, 50% of the Hindu electorate votes in an election. But, 80% of the minority electorate casts their votes. Aggregated, we have a 56% voting of which Hindu vote is around 71%. To reach the critical 35% vote share required to win elections in a first past the post electoral system, the BJP has to win over 50% of this Hindu vote while the Congress needs to win only around 15% of such votes. So, who loses if the ostensible constituency does not vote?

• Media will report as per its own agenda. The GOP is not oblivious of the importance of media and unlike the BJP, has its own media and propaganda networks. At the same time, the liberal elites dominate the print and visual media and the latter in particular, has an impact which is difficult to beat. With this media supporting Obama and caricaturing GOP and Romney, the latter suffered a significant disadvantage in reporting. Unfortunately, in India, the odds against the BJP are stacked even higher, as far as media perceptions are concerned. Rather than sending lambs for slaughter in the meaningless television studio wars, the BJP could do good to boycott them altogether. After all, what is the point in trying to present your case to an anchor who is the complainant, the prosecutor, the judge and the executioner!

• Focus on Battlegrounds: It may have been the need to raise funds or simply an attempt to placate the faithful, the fact remains that Romney spent too much of time campaigning in states which were solidly Republican. Given that the outcome was decided by some ten and not all the fifty two stats of the USA, gives credence to belief that Obama benefited from his laser like focus on the battleground states; so much so that while the National difference in vote share for the two candidates was less than 2%, in all but one of the swing states, Obama romped home by anything in between 3% to over 5% of the popular vote. This means that even if GOP had made up for the Nation-wide vote share deficit, Obama would still have been re-elected. Same way in India, BJP by itself is present in some 380 odd constituencies and is strong enough to pose a fight in some 280-300 seats. Of these, some 60 - 70 would fall under, what may be called safe seats while a similar number would comprise of those which would be very tough to win. Ideally, the unwavering focus for the party should be on the balance 180 or so seats, so that it can realistically aim at reaching an individual seat tally of 180-190.

• Personalised attacks do make a difference. The Democrats ran a campaign which was probably amongst the ugliest in the US history. Even before the Republican nomination was sealed, the Democrat machinery unleashed a shrill attack on Romney painting him as an out of touch plutocrat. While there certainly was some sniping on Obama from the GOP fringes, the mainstream Republicans did not target Obama on issues other than performance. On the other hand, Obama himself took the lead in deriding Romney, taking names, poking fun and being generally nasty. It did work! In India too, any successful campaign has been built around personalities, either for or against. BJP itself successfully painted Sonia as a foreigner in the General Elections of the 1990s but turned coy later. Even now, only claiming that the UPA is corrupt will not provide it with any benefits till the time this corruption is given a face. Obama’s ratings started looking up post a dip only after he adopted an aggressive stance against Romney. The BJP could do well to shed its diffidence and a hands-off policy against the Nehru-Gandhis and take its battle to the enemy camp.

It is difficult to conceive that the individually brilliant BJP strategists would be unaware of the pitfalls of the party’s current approach. Then why is it that they have failed to present themselves as a credible alternative to the Congress? Surely, individual ambitions cannot be so high so as to blind them to the fallacies of only acting like an opposition, that too on an intermittent basis? But since there is little evidence to the contrary, we need to go with what appearances suggest. Thence, welcome UPA 3.