Rape and humanity

May 30, 2014

Rohit Dhankar

And yet again—two teenage girls are raped and murdered in UP. It seems like never ending macabre drama totally oblivious of and unaffected by the routinely expressed outrage in newspapers and electronic media. How does one understand it? Why is it happening with such sickening regularity? Sophisticated analysis involving notions like power, hegemony, patriarchy and rape as an exercise of power etc. are beyond me; and I suspect beyond most of the common public. Therefore, I will try to understand this social disease through some more common sense notions.

I will start with two reasonably well accepted characteristics of human beings, which to my mind are most relevant in understanding rape. One, human beings are understood to recognise other human beings and as having respect for them. Respecting the other necessarily involves respecting his/her wishes, desires and ideas. The second, humans are supposed to be the kind of animals who can defer their desires either in order to optimize their fulfilment or in order to uphold certain values; for example, the value of respect for others. This demands an ability to understand implications of ones actions and self-control. A human being is supposed to restrain himself/herself when his/her actions motivated by fulfilment of desire violate respect due to the other and/or have undesirable consequences for himself/herself. The first is a moral restraint involving a certain measure of selflessness; the second is a pragmatic restraint focused on the selfishness. When a society fails to develop moral rectitude and foresight to see the consequence of ones actions for the others and one’s own self, the moral order breaks down in a measure proportionate to the magnitude of the failure. Together with this failure to develop requisite moral restraint and understanding if the perpetrators also see that the retributive action (punishment) mated out by the society can either be avoided or is too easily bearable then there is neither motivation nor capability for self-restraint. We should note here that the punishment will also work only if the potential rapist has requisite capability for self-restraint; in absence of which he will commit the crime knowingly; simply because he will be unable to control himself.

If the above analysis has some value then, I propose, that the rape is a result of one or more of the following:

• Lack of respect for the other (in this case for women)
• Lack of foresight (intelligence) to understand consequences of ones actions on himself and on others
• Lack of self-restraint to defer desires
• Lack of fear of punishment

Note that the first three are characteristics of being human. And also have a component which is internal to the perpetrator, of course, without denying the social aspect which might be external to him. Here, obviously, I am assuming a certain degree of freewill in humans. Those who deny freewill completely, have no ground to blame the perpetrators or for punishing them. In my view such theories that deny freewill are becoming too rampant in the society and absolve individuals from all blame for their actions.

Rape, then, is a result of fall from humanity and failure of external fear. This failure can be momentary or a more settled disposition of the perpetrator. The questions is: why does it happen with such a sickening regularity?

Let’s think about how societies build the four things listed above. An authoritarian society functions on taboos into which its members are indoctrinated. The taboos may come from social setup, caste or religion. The family being the primary institution which is responsible for instilling those taboos in the minds of the young. Religion in today’s societies has lost all faith; it is perpetuating itself on the basis of political gains it brings to those who pretend to have faith. The moral aspect of religious faith is almost absent. Also religion paints women in a certain light where they are either an object of enjoyment (field of men) or door to the hell (nark ka dwaar). All religion lack in respect for women as human beings of equal worth to men. Therefore, even if the religious faith remains it will not always deter men from oppression, including rape, of women. Our families hardly teach respect for others outside the family itself. Often fail to teach it for even its own members.

Democratic societies depend on the development of the individual in respect of thinking, morals and action. Since our families are hardly democratic they fails to develop such ethos of respect for others in a large number. The other institution on which democratic societies depend is education. We all know the total failure of our education system be that moral or intellectual. In common parlance education is simply an instrument of upward mobility through cut throat competition. Education has abandoned its moral aspect altogether. Fulfilling one’s desires by any means is called success and success is the mantra. Both those who are successful in such education as well as those who fail grow up without the moral fibre. The successfully educated fulfil their desires through more sophisticated means and exploit women in more subtle manner (think of Tahalka). The failed ones go after it more directly. My suspicion is that rape and exploitation by sophisticated means is much more common than the direct violent act in our society.

So what avenues are there to develop world view and moral frameworks in or society? Well, some serious studies are required here. But one avenue that comes to mind is electronic media and films. How are women painted in TV programmes, films and advertisements? One, they are always seeking sexual attention from men. Two, they enjoy this attention but never admit that they do. Three, the bolder a man is in approaching her more successful he is. Four, her denial is just a way of intensifying men’s desire and pretention to meet social expectations. This tells men that women are to be approached and approached forcefully. Their denial is non-serious. Once pursued successfully she will be happy. Of course this is a totally false picture of women; that is what is communicated to boys and men.

Now let’s look at the punishment as a deterrent. First, punishment works only if the perpetrator can think of consequences of his actions. If he fails to see the consequences then it does not work. And most of the perpetrators perhaps do fail at this. Second, even if one sees the consequences, but is convinced that he can avoid them; punishment does not work. Look at our society, how many crimes go unpunished? How long it takes for the punishment to me mated out? What part the power and money plays in avoiding punishment? Is it a wonder that in such a situation the perpetrator sees himself immune to any real consequences to himself?

My guess is that the punishment will not work in the absence of self-restraint either. And self-restraint is breaking down. It seems to me that the society is failing in its project to be humane. It is failing to develop the human characteristics of respect to others, intelligence, and self-restraint in its young; and is failing to instil fear in the minds of those who have managed to grow up without those characteristics. Clamoring for the punishment alone then is not going to work. Punishment is necessary, but not sufficient. It is a larger failure of development of humanity. We have to look at education, family and media for reversing the direction. We have to particularly look at the advertisements which all, without exception, work on the crude and animal instinct in human beings.
Till we analyze these issues more rigorously and start acting with needed firmness on all aspects we are condemned to be living in a society that outrages half the humanity; and feel guilty about it.

BJP’s communal agenda: a quick examination

May 25, 2014

Rohit Dhankar

From the manifesto:

Ram Mandir

BJP in its manifesto (page 41) declares “BJP reiterates its stand to explore all possibilities within the framework of the constitution to facilitate the construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya.” (Emphasis added)

This is a pledge for “exploring” possibilities and “within the constitutional framework”, and not a commitment. And still it is communal in nature and goes against secularism. The issue is that the state has got nothing to do with the construction of temples or mosques. A political party when mentions this in its election manifesto is trying to garner votes in the name of religion and a government when tries to explore possibilities for construction of a temple is favouring a particular religion.

This is a divisive issue in Indian politics, BJP has used it before and still keeps using it.

Ram Setu

On the same page BJP declares “Ram Setu is a part of our cultural heritage and also of strategic importance due to its vast thorium deposits. These facts will be taken into consideration while taking any decision on ‘Sethu-Samudram Channel’ project.” (Emphasis added)

There is no evidence of what is called Ram Setu being a creation of humans. All evidence shows it is a natural formation. The connection with Rama and his Lanka Vijay is purely mythological, as most probably Ram himself is. Again, this is a communal agenda in favour of one religion (Hinduism). Arguments in connection with Ram Mandir apply here as well.


The BJP says “River Ganga is a symbol of faith in India, and has a special place in the Indian psyche. It is Mukti dayini. …Pure water of the Ganga are thus essential for the spiritual as well as physical wellbeing of India.”

Cleaning Ganga is a laudable project. No one can fight with that. But it is laudable for economic and environmental reason. Connecting it with faith, mukti and spirituality in a manifesto is a communal move. The way Modi has talked of Ganga mata in the campaign and has participated in the Ganga Aarti after electoral victory certainly is a communal move to send signals to a certain section of Hindu community.

Cow and its Progeny

The manifesto declares that “Necessary legal framework will be created to protect and promote cow and its progeny.” All reasons given in the manifesto are economic. But the history of BJP and its handling of cow protection makes it plain that it is the “holy cow” that is being protected, not the useful animal that is important in the agricultural activities, for its milk, for its hide and for its meat. It is a not-so-cleverly disguised communal agenda.

Uniform Civil Code

BJP’s declared stand: “Article 44 of the constitution of India lists Uniform Civil Code as one of the Directive Principles of state policy. BJP believes that there cannot be gender equality till such time India adopts a Uniform Civil Code, which protects the rights of all women, and the BJP reiterates its stand to draft a Uniform Civil Code, drawing upon the best traditions and harmonizing them with the modern times.”

This is often attacked by liberals and so-called secularists and seen as something against Muslims. It seems to me that it is a good step and there is nothing communal about it. Having the same code for all citizens of a country is a laudable aim.

Civil codes of communities and religions which go against the rights of a democratic citizen will have to give way. Democracy is not a federation of religions; it is premised on the autonomy of individual in her personal life and setting one’s own life goals. Taking this right away from citizens in the name of religion or communitarian ethics abandons the very principle on with democracy rests.

Article 370

BJP’s stand on article 370 is seen as a communal move against Kashmiri Muslims. What BJP says is “BJP reiterates its stand on the Article 370, and will discuss this with all stakeholders and remains committed to the abrogation of this article.”

This is a complex affair. What exactly are the provisions of the said article is a matter of some exploration for me. The article refers back to other articles and without a study of all the references what exact impact it has on the state and its relationship with the rest of the country if not clear; that is: to me, as it is now.

However, it is clear from reading of the article 370 itself that it (i) gives a special status to J & K; (ii) it is considered temporary; (iii) can be abrogated though a specified constitutional process. Regarding the abrogation the article itself states: “(3) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this article, the President may, by public notification, declare that this article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may specify: Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.”

So where is the problem if BJP is trying to discuss with all stake holders and attempting to abrogate the article? Why should it be considered objectionable and communal in a democracy? In my view BJP is on the right track on this issue.

Natural home for persecuted Hindus from other countries

The manifesto states “India shall remain a natural home for persecuted Hindus and they shall be welcome to seek refuge here.”

As it stand it clearly privileges Hindus and that is not secular, is clearly communal in this sense.

Pranav Goswami asked Modi in one of his interviews why only “persecuted Hindus” not persecuted Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, Christians and Muslims? Modi obfuscated on the question and said that his party uses the term “Hindu” as the Supreme Court defined it, ‘a way of life, and not as a religion’. Thus, according to him all ‘Indian origin” people who went or were taken to other countries and are being persecuted there now can come back and India will remain their natural home. If BJP modifies it in this sense, it ceases to privileged Hindus and becomes a secular principle of Indian state.

Then Modi further clarified that it does not apply to Muslims from Pakistan and Bangladesh; however, Hindus from these two countries are welcome. He did not clarify if Christians, Jains, Sikhs and Buddhists from these counties can also find India their natural home if they are persecuted? If BJP accepts this position then I believe it could be justified. Pakistan was created in the name of Islam and Muslims who remained there at the time of partition or went there at that time consciously forfeited their Indian citizenship and their claim to it. I see no reason to extend this privilege to them now. He also said that at the time of partitions there were 31% Hindus in Bangladesh, but now there are about 7%; this indicated persecution. If his data are correct (I am not sure of that) and there is no other explanation, it points to persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh. Persecution of Hindus, Sikhs and Christians in Pakistan is no secret.

Therefore, BJP’s stand that (i) it will welcome all Indian origin people (replace “Hindu” in current version with “Indian origin”) if they are persecuted in their countries and seek asylum, (ii) they will welcome all Indian origin people but Muslims from Pakistan and Bangladesh, if they are persecuted. This makes sense to me. Point two above is considered very controversial and Indian intellectuals consider it non-secular and communal; I personally believe they are wrong and do not have good arguments to support their opinion.

But as the pledge in the manifesto stands today it is only for Hindus and therefore is not secular and is communal in nature.

From Modi’s campaign and speeches and acts

Bangladeshi’s will have to go

Modi declared in Assam and Bengal that Bangladeshi ‘infiltrators’ have to go back.

The Hindu on 9th May 14 published a condemnation of these remarks sent by SEHMAT and sighed by the who’s-who of Indian intelligentsia. They state “We the undersigned, are deeply disturbed by the reported remarks of the Prime Ministerial candidate of the NDA at an election rally in West Bengal that “infiltrators” from Bangladesh, belonging to a particular religious community, must be sent back. Apart from the sheer inhumanity of the remark, we fear that in a country in which every citizen does not possess documentary proof of citizenship, such a move would simply cause a general victimization of persons belonging to that particular religious community.”

Their reasons for condemnation seem to be three: (i) it is inhuman to send back people coming from other countries to seek livelihood, (ii) every Indian citizen does not possess proper identification papers and therefore such move will victimize Muslims, and (iii) that Indians are seeking to stay in various countries and we oppose political and other formations in those countries who want to send illegal immigrates back to India.

I find it very difficult to accept the argument that anyone seeking livelihood can enter a country of his/her choice without papers and illegally; and gains the right to live in that country by sheer force of his/her illegal entry. If it would not have come from such august body of intellectuals I would have called it plain silly. But authority itself is no argument and I know no justification for such a stand. If I accept this then I have to accept that Indians who enter other countries illegally have no right to stay there and the people of those counties are right when they want to send them back. We must accept this.

That leaves us with the point (ii) in the paragraph above. That every Indian citizen does not possess proper identification papers and therefore such move will victimise Muslims. This is difficult to deny given the present political and social climate of the country. But we must note two things; (1) this is a practical difficulty in implementation of the move and not an objection directly based on any ethical principle, and (2) acceptance of this practical problem as ‘unsolvable’ puts India in a very vulnerable position. This acceptance means that Muslims from Bangladesh can keep on coming in India and they will just remain here, as it is difficult to identify them. I wonder how the intellectuals can be so insensitive to the majority worry that this stand has changed demography of many border regions of the country. The suspicion of the majority community that some (not all) Muslims and some politicians make this identification difficult and arrange documents like ration cards etc. for some Bangladeshis can hardly be called unfounded. This is actually happening, and by denying such things intellectuals and opinion makers simply push people towards BJP mind-set.

Therefore, acceptance of the problem as unsolvable cannot be a permanent solution. We must find fool-proof methods of identifying infiltrator Bangladeshis and should not make the difficulty in identifying them a plea for letting them live in India. The so-called secular intellectuals are plain wrong here and lose their credibility by taking such positions.

Vishwanath darshan and Ganga Aarati after electoral victory

I have argued in one of my initial blog posts that an individual can be a deeply religious person and can discharge his duties as a judge, politician, bureaucrat or police officer without prejudice, upholding the state policy of secularism. So Modi if goes to thank Vishwanath or offer aarati to Ganga as an individual, it should be no concern of a citizen.

But Modi did not go there an individual. He went there as a Prime Ministerial candidate of a political formation and the political formation supported his visit by making arrangements and so on. If a Prime Minister of a country uses party or state resources and his visibility as a political leader to emphases rituals of any particular religion it is difficult to pass that act as his personal matter and having nothing to do with the secular nature of the state. In this sense Modi did not behave as a secular leader and is unlikely to do so in future.

The religious bias in BJP as per this analysis is clear; and as citizens we have to be vigilant about how it plays out in future. One hopes that the pressure of active citizenship will force BJP and Modi to shun these biases. But that could happen only if the intelligentsia and opinion makers themselves shed their biases against some and in favour of some other religious communities; so far their record has been really bad. Actually, hardly better than BJP but in the opposite direction. Hope they will see the light now as the BJP victory is at the least partly a result of their biased analysis.


Kejriwal and the court

May 24, 2014

Rohit Dhankar

We need some facts, and without beating around the bush: 1. is Kejriwal charged with criminal defamation? 2. Does Kejriwal’s statement about Nitin Gadkari being corrupt constitute prima facie evidence (till his claim is proved in the court) for criminal defamation? 3. In such cases is it within the courts purview to ask the respondent to furnish bail in such cases?

If the answer to three questions is yes, Kejriwal is violating the judicial norms and should be in the jail. If the answer is NO, the court is being unjust with Kejriwal. So what are the answers to these questions? We need to think is we are ready to accept that respondents are not needed to furnish bail; whoever they might be and whosoever might be the defamed, think of you and me and every one as a petitioner and respondent.

Kejriwal’s cleverly drafted letter does not answer these questions. Fight against corruption has to be fought within legal framework of the country. If the framework is wrong it has to be fought differently and at other forums. Kejriwal’s argument that other courts allowed him to go free on the basis of muchalka, does not mean that becomes his right. This court thinks differently, and may be within its powers in thinking differently. There are too many examples of brow beating the courts and it’s summons in our country. There are non-bailable warrants pending against religious leaders and other people who have power to disrupt law and order and go free through threats. Kejriwal, if he is a real reformer, should not add to that list.

Comparing Kejriwal with Gandhi is plain wrong. Gandhi declared the British Raj illegitimate. Does Kejriwal declare Indian government illegitimate? He is doing politics of remaining in public mind, if the answer to my three Qs is yes; and banking on public gullibility as usual. His politics has always been unreliable, irresponsible and self-centred. If the public accepts this style of politics and gets on this bandwagon in a major way, his today’s supporters will be dealing with a dictator in 15-20 years. He is equivalent in politics what Nirmal Babas are in religion.


Democracy and hope

May 16, 2014

Rohit Dhankar

Democracy is about living together. Living together with mutual respect, dignity, freedom, and constantly striving for more just and more equitable society. Democracy is about expanding your consciousness to encompass all humanity.

Evil in democracy is that which denies dignity, equality, justice and voice to the other. The other might be your brother/sister. The other might be your ideological opponent. Denying equality, justice, freedom and voice even to your opponent is evil in democracy.

Democracy is about trust in people. People may make mistakes, they may come to conclusions one considers faulty, wrong, and even evil. Democracy is about listening to that voice which you consider wrong. It is about opening a dialogue with that voice while keeping trust in your own judgment. It is about making whole hearted attempt to understand root causes of people coming to a conclusion you consider wrong. And then opening a dialogue to weed out the wrong; whether in you or in your opponent.

Democracy is about fighting evil with non-violent means; with power of ideas, within the means provided and norms set by the constitution.

There are four evils (evil not in a religious sense, but as defined above) very prominently visible in our democracy: sectarian and casteist politics, anti-people economy, dynastic rule and corruption.

People with strong biases against sections of people are likely to come to power within next 12 hours. People with anti-people economic ideology are coming to power. People with servile attitude to dynasty are likely to be defeated. Corruption is likely to thrive as it has been doing so far.

Our best hope is to mitigate biases so that they do not effect national life. To push economy to pro-people as much as possible. Let’s hope that there shall be enough parliamentary power and alertness on the part of people to stop the sectarian evil, even if it is in power. Let’s hope that some spineless creature so far working under dynastic yoke sees light and gets courage to throw the yoke to ground; becomes a genuine human being and buries the dynasty.

These are bad times. The best thing that can happen to Indian democracy is that BJP led NDA is forced to remain secular and non-sectarian. And that the Congress gets courage to retire the dynasty finally.

Alas, all this seems to be hoping against the hope. And still, people who like democracy have to brace for a long fight ahead.

Can a US court summon Manmohan Singh?

May 4, 2014

Rohit Dhankar

A few months back we read in newspapers that a US court has summoned Sonia Gandhi in case filed by Sikhs for Justice (SFJ) in which she is accused of protecting those who were involved in killings of Sikhs in 1984.

Today I came across another news item: “The Washington federal court had issued summons against Manmohan Singh during his September 2013 visit to Washington on a plea by Sikhs For Justice (SFJ) accusing him of “funding crimes against humanity perpetrated upon the Sikh community in India”.

This is a matter of national sovereignty; therefore the issue of what one thinks of Sonia Gandhi and Man Mohan Singh is irrelevant.

The question which comes to my mind is: under what international law can US court summon such warrants? Or is it under some US law? If the later, do US laws have jurisdiction over Indian territory? Is it interference in internal matters of India?

Supposing it is legal under some international law or under some US law, then can an Indian court admit a plea against Obama and issue summons to him?

The kind of ground on which Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh are summoned are aplenty against Obama. Actually I have a better grounds. Consider this:
1. This is well known that USA gives huge grants to Pakistan, in terms of money and arms.
2. US grants definitely require approval from US President.
3. Part of this grant is certainly used by Pakistani military and ISI.
4. ISI of Pakistan trained the terrorists who attacked Mumbai on 26/11/2008.

Therefore, Obama is responsible for Mumbai attacks.

Can I file a case against Obama in this matter in a Bangalore or Jaipur court?

Can someone please share authentic legal information on these questions?


“मोदी … और इंदिरा गांधी” से आगे: यह संवाद का तरीका स्वयं में ही प्रमाण है

May 2, 2014

रोहित धनकर

(नीचे के आलेख में बहुत वर्तनी की गलतियां होंगी. यह इंटरनेट पर हिंदी टाइप पेज पर लिखा है. दुरुष्त करना आता नहीं है. तो माफ़ करें.)

केशव जी ने मेरे आलेख “मोदी और …..” पर टिप्पणी की है. यह टिप्पणी एक पूरे ब्लॉग पोस्ट की मांग करती है, मुझे लगा सिर्फ पुराने पोस्ट में इस का उत्तर नहीं दिया जा सकता. तो पहले आप केशव जी की पूरी टिप्पणी पढ़लें:

“रोहित धनकर का लेख, एक hallucination से पीड़ित है, कपोल कल्पानाएं कर के अपना पागलपन लोगों पर थोपना..
मोदी पिछले एक दशक से गुजरात में कार्य कर रहे हैं, एक ऐसी सरकार जिसने स्वतन्त्रता के बाद से इस देश में एक छत्र राज किया है, उसके पास हर तरह की ताक़त मौजूद है उसने श्याम दाम दंड भेद यानी हर तरह हथकंडे उस सरकार ने पिछले एक दशक में मोदी को मटियामेट करने के लिए इस्तेमाल किये पर वे लोग ना तो गुजरात का सौहार्द खराब कर पाये ना वो गुजरात की प्रगति को रोक पाये
वास्तविकता यह है की इस देश को अपनी जेब में रख कर चलने वालों को मोदी से बहुत सी परेशानियां हैं और मोदी प्रधानमंत्री बनते हैं तो उन्हें ही दिक्कते आने वाली हैं इसलिए वे ही लोग हिटलर जैसे जुमले आम जनता को डराने के लिए इस्तेमाल कर रहे हैं और उन्हें भटकाने की पुरजोर कोशिशों में लगे हैं
रोहित धनकर जैसे लोग सिर्फ ट्रेडर्स हैं जो सिर्फ बिक कर अपना लाभ लेते हैं देश हित के लिए न सोचते हैं ना ही उन्हें कोई मतलब है…”

किसी भी संवाद को सार्थक और विवेक सम्मत बनाये रखने के लिए जरूरी है कि हम एक दूसरे कि बात सुनें, उस के पीछे तथ्य, तर्क और नजरिये को समझें. समझने के बाद उस से सहमत होना, असहमत होना, उसका समर्थन करना या विरोध करना हमारा लोकतांत्रिक हक़ है. “पागलपन”, “बिकना” आदि शब्दावली सुनने और समझने से इंकार करने के संकेत हैं. तो मेरी केशव जी से पहली गुजारिश तो यह होगी कि वे मेरे पागलपन पर ध्यान देने के बजाय मेरे तर्क और तथ्यों पर ध्यान दें. यह इस लिए कि लोकतंत्र में संवाद के बिना काम नहीं चल सकता, और किसी भी विचार के साथ, चाहे आप उसे कु-विचार ही माने, संवाद तो करना ही पड़ेगा.

पिछले दस वर्षों में केंद्र की कांग्रेस सरकार ने मोदी को शिकार बनाने कि कोशिश की यह आरोप कांग्रेस और उसके समर्थकों के बयानों और व्यवहार के देखते हुए कोई बहुत खींचा हुआ नहीं लगता. एक प्रकार कि दुर्भावना कांग्रेस के व्यवहार में दीखती रही है. पर उसी प्रकार कि दुर्भावना मोदी में भी कांग्रेस के प्रति नजर आती रही है.

केशव जी ने इस बात कि तरफ ध्यान ही नहीं दिया कि मैं मोदी को हिटलर के बजाय इंदिरा गांधी के अधिक नजदीक पता हूँ. और मेरा लेख इस तरह का अतिशयोक्तिपूर्ण डर पैदा करने कि कोशिश का विरोध करता है.

मैंने मोदी के बारे में जो चार बातें कही हैं के विरुद्ध केशव जी ने कोई नयी जानकारी या तर्क नहीं दिए हैं. मैंने कहा है कि:
१. मोदी और उनकी पार्टी में हिन्दू-पक्षधरता है, वे पंथ-निरपेक्ष नहीं हैं. इस से डर और कट्टरवाद बढ़ेगा.
२. मोदी कि आर्थिक नीतिया शायद गरीब आदमी कि अनदेखी करेंगी.
३. मोदी और उसके लोग विरोधियों को ताकत के बल पर चुप करने कि कोशिश करेंगे.
४. मोदी में अधिनायकवाद के साफ़ लक्षण हैं.

केशव जी ने इसके विरोध में एक भी तर्क नहीं दिया. केवल मुझे बिक हुआ कहा कर इसे खारिज कर दिया. तो नया पलोग पोस्ट इन चीजों पर नए तथ्य या तर्क देने कि लिए नहीं लिख रहा, पुराने ही काफी हैं.

नए ब्लॉग पोस्ट के पीछे कारण केशव जी की भाषा और संवाद का तरीका है. इस कि आप तोगड़िया की मुसलमानों को दूर रखे कि सलाह, गिरिराज सिंह की मोदी विरोधियों को पाकिस्तान भेजने की धमकी, और अमित शाह कि बदले की सलाह से करिये. मोदी के समर्थकों का यह जो संवाद का तरीका है, इसमें जो सहमत नहीं है वह दुश्मन है, वह लोकतंत्र में भिन्न विचार रखने वाला नागरिक नहीं है, सत्य का दुश्मन है. और ऐसे लोगों को मोदी प्रधान मंत्री बने तो केशव जी के कथन के अनुसार ” दिक्कते आने वाली है”. मेरा तीसरा बिंदु एहि है. इसे केशव जी बिना जाने ही सही साबित कर रहे हैं.

केशव जी मझे तो जानते ही नहीं, तो उन्हें कैसे पता कि मैं ट्रेडर हूँ और कुछ बेचता हूँ? वास्तव में उनके लिए ये सब जानने की जरूरत भी नहीं है; क्योंकि विरोधी होना स्वयं ही खारिज करने के लिए काफी है. केशव जी, यही समश्या है, आप जैसे लोग लोकतंत्र की मूल भावना को नहीं समझते और इस लिए भीड़ के बल पर तानाशाही करना चाहते हैं. भाई, यह तरीका ठीक नहीं है. आप हमारी बात सुनिए, ठीक लगे तो मानिए, न लगे तो तर्क से विरोध करिये. ऐसा ही हम आप के साथ करेंगे. तभी हम समझ सकेंगे एक दूसरे को और कोई सहमति और साझा विचार बना पाएंगे.

केशव जी के लेखन में यह भी साफ़ है कि देश भक्ति उनके विचार से उन्ही कि बपौती है. जो उनसे असहमय है उनको देश से कोई मतलब नहीं है. वह देश के बारे में नहीं सोचता. केशव जी, देश के मायने हैं उसके सारे नागरिक, उसकी सारी संस्कृति, उसकी सारी परम्पराएँ, उसकी साड़ी जमीन और उसकी सारी संपत्ति. लोकतंत्र में देश शांझी सोच से बनता है. कोई धडी-घड़ाई मूर्ती कि पूजा से नहीं. देश भक्ति का अर्थ है उसके सारे लोगों कि भलाई के बारे में सोचना और चिंतित हिना, सब के दुःख और दर्द को महसूस करना, उसकी संस्कृति की सुबह बातों को आगे बढ़ाना और निकृष्ठ या न्याय विरोधी विचार को खारिज करना. और विरोधियों के अधिकारों की रक्षा करना. उनको भी बोलने की आजादी देना. जो यह सब नहीं करता वह और कुछ भी हो देशभक्त तो नहीं हो सकता.

केशव जी, मैंने यहाँ जो कहा है इस से आपको बहुत असहमति होसकती है. अब आप जरा ठन्डे मन से चोचिये इस में गलत क्या क्या है. गलती सब से होती है, मैंने भी कुछ गलत लिखा होगा. पर उसे संयत भाषा में और तथ्यों के साथ तर्क के साथ बताइये. हो सकता है मैं आप से सहमत हो जाऊं या आप ही मेरे से सहमत हो जाएँ.


Thinking and thought: a short email conversation with a student

May 1, 2014

Rohit Dhankar

Question (Harshita Das): “Is it the thought or thinking that ceases?” or “Which one is more fluid?”

Answer (Rohit): A quick half-thought response  below.

Thinking is a process or activity (mental of course). Without going into deep analysis I immediately see at the least two things that characterize this activity:
It sometimes involves creation/shaping of an idea, concept, through delineating segment(s) of experience(s) to be seen as ‘one unit’ and associating it with a linguistic entity, thereby creating words to indicate the concept in question. Ex. forming the ideas of education, student, politician, elephant and so on.

More often it involves working out/critiquing and clearly stating a relationship between two or more concepts. Ex. Elephants have long memories. Pay attention to relationships between “elephants”, “memory”, “long”, “have” (possess).

Thinking might cease in the sense that a person may stop working out new relationships, examining the accepted relationships, or concepts. A person may become a total conformist to results of his/her own ‘past’ thinking or of others’ thinking. We say his/her thinking has stopped. That means the activity of working our new mental entities either in terms of ideas or in terms of relationships is stopped. Ex. Once you accept of a dogma further thinking on that issue “ceases”. Look for actual examples among politicians and religious leaders.

Thinking, defined in this manner, never stops in ‘absolute sense’ unless one becomes vegetable or dies.

Thought is a result of activity of thinking, the mental entity produced as its result, be that through conscious thinking or automated habit of mind which may go on without conscious efforts or even awareness. The idea of ‘education’ you have firmed up in your mind may be called a thought. Similarly, the idea that “education kills creativity” may be called a thought.

Defined in this sense, I would not know what could it mean for a thought to ‘cease’? The only possibility I see is ‘forgetting’, ceasing to be used in further deliberations, or, again, becoming a vegetable or dying. In all these cases the idea of ‘thought ceased’ in general sounds a bit misplaced use, unless ‘thought’ is interpreted as ‘thinking’. However, in particular cases like “that thought ceased bothering me any longer” it seems to be perfectly acceptable.

So, it seems to me it is thinking that ceases; in any case “cessation of thinking” sounds more ominous to me than “cessation of through” whatever the later might mean.

Thinking by nature is fluid, though it may become routine and bound by set patterns. Thought by nature is more settled, though an active thinking process may keep it fluid. But if this fluidness increases to the level where it becomes mercurial thought becomes useless.

Not sure it is of any help to you or not. If it creates more confusion and generates more furious ‘thinking’ in your mind it should be good enough. 