Reducing oneself to irrelevance

November 6, 2016

Rohit Dhankar

Then the king said, “Venerable sir, will you discuss with me again?”

“If your majesty will discuss as a scholar, yes; but if you will discuss as a king, no.”

“How is it then that scholars discuss?”

“When scholars discuss there is a summing up and an unravelling; one or other is shown to be in error. He admits his mistake, yet he does not become angry.”

“Then how is it that kings discuss?”

“When a king discusses a matter and advances a point of view, if anyone differs from him on that point he is apt to punish him.”

“Very well then, it is as a scholar that I will discuss. Let your reverence talk without fear.” (Emphasis added)

 

(Debate of King Milind, Chapter 1.3.  Tranlation Bhikkhu Pesala, Buddha Dharma Education Association Inc, Web site: www.buddhanet.net)

This is part of a debate (dialogue?) between a Buddhist Monk Nagasena and King Milinda— a Bactrian Greek—who was ruling over major parts of the north India at that time. “Milind Panha” (literally “questions of Milinda”) was “probably compiled in the first century B.C.” This indicates historical roots of the culture of dialogue in this country. This also shows that the scholars of that time made a distinction between dialogues held between scholars and that with a King. And Nagasena makes it clear that he is willing to discuss with the King only if the King discusses as a scholar. But then Nagasena also characterises the dialogue between scholars as that in which there is summing up, unravelling, admission of errors and all this without getting angry.

This was a scholarly dialogue on existence of the soul and other related matters. But the conditions of scholarly dialogue sound good even for a political dialogue, as what is the point in a dialogue if there is no summing up (however delayed), no unravelling, no change of opinion and admission of mistakes either in the facts or in the logic employed in the dialogue? A dialogue is not to bash the other, or to buttress your own point. If a dialogue is to enhance understanding and arrive at informed consensus then ‘listening’ to the other and admitting the strength and persuasive power of the other’s argument—if there is any— has to be an integral part of it.

Can presently raging political ‘debate’ in our beloved country, then, be called a “debate” or a “dialogue”? Of course the matter is much more complex and serious. The subject matter is not a theory about the soul, but a live political situation which has immediate effect on people’s lives. That makes it much more emotionally charged. The participants are not only the government (King) and the Monk (journalists and intellectuals) but also an army of social media using commoners, the janata, and the supporters of the government. So it is a battle between multiple forces to grab ‘public mind’.

There can be other positions in addition to that of the scholar and the King. One such position can be a closed minded propagandist who cares little for the fact and truth, and actually wants to create public acceptance of a predetermined political position. There can be an umpteen number of bullshitters in a public debate who are determined only to push their own line of thinking with complete disregard for the available facts and accepted moral (political included) and epistemic  principles.

To understand this let’s take a small part of the currently raging debate around taking one channel of NDTV off air for a day. But before that, to avoid misunderstanding, let us admit that the government presently is not behaving in a manner conducive to either democracy or a healthy public debate. Their position on nationalism, cow slaughter/protection and communalism is deeply disturbing. This is a matter that should be understood in detail, here I am simply accepting all this without providing any evidence or argument in support of these claims. This is obvious that all this should be resisted and fought against to protect the right to free speech and to protect a vibrant democracy. In this context let’s look at the NDTV one day ban on one channel.

First there are some factual questions:

  1. What exactly is the order of ban? On what grounds? Does anyone know and have read the exact text of the ban order?
  2. What is the legal position on this issue? Katju in his Facebook post claims that legally TV channels are banned only from airing live operation. Other reports that are not live feed can be aired? Is that the case? Can one air position of sensitive installations and other spots like ammunition depot?
  3. Is it really a first ban of this kind or such bans have been there in the past as well? Venkaiah Naidu claims that “AXN was banned for two months. FTV was banned for two months. Enter10 for one day. ABN AndhraJyoti seven days. Al Jazeera was banned for five days for showing wrong map of India. These are all done earlier.” Is he right? What were the reasons behind such bans?

Then, there is the issue of singling out NDTV. It is claimed that other channels have aired the same or similar reports, they are not punished. Only NDTV Hindi channel is picked out. Is it a good argument? Suppose airing the kind of stuff NDTV aired, is it a good defence that it should not be punished as others are not punished for the same crime?

Ravish Kumar’s programme on the episode in Prime Time is very well appreciated by a large number of educated Indians. Does that episode clarify any of these issues? Does weaving a powerful episode using an art form necessarily enhance the level of debate and help in making informed choices? Even if all the questions or facts and moral principles are left untouched? Or such a programme becomes just a powerful propaganda which further caricatures the real situation and firms up the already existing non-communicative divisions in the society? In short: was this particular prime time episode of Ravish a sound argument in healthy debate or is it simply a closed minded propaganda? Does Ravish explains and unravels? Does he provide counter facts to make the other party in the debate accept their error? Does he answer the questions raised by the other party?

Another question that arises is to whom should a serious journalist like Ravish Kumar respond? Ravish has made much of Rijiju’s statement that raising questions on the security forces and authority is not good culture. As a journalist with conscience and intelligence was it his duty to clarify whether Rijiju’s was talking about “questions in general” or about the “habit of raising unnecessary doubts and questions”? Should we as alert citizens come to an immediate conclusion (that the government is wrong) on all events involving security forces? Or should we try to ascertain facts and then come to a conclusion? Do all questions have the force to challenge powers that be? Or can questions be asked in a misguided and hyperbole manner that end up discrediting the one who asks them and therefore, strengthen the stranglehold of the entrenched powers?

On the other side a characteristic response from the supporters of Modi and his government is somewhat like this: “कभी आप ने कुत्तों के झुंड को भौंकते देखा है? आपने देखा होगा कि गली का एक कुता जब भौंकना शुरू करता है तो उस गली के सारे कुत्ते पीछे से भौंकना शुरू कर देता है। कुछ ऐसा ही हाल हमारे देश के एक गली में हो रहा है जिसका अगुवाई देश के जाने -माने होशियार कुता कर रहा है। खास बात यह है कि इस गली में रहने वाला सारा कुता कुछ खास समय पर कुछ खास अवधि के लिए ही भौंकता है क्योंकि ये कुत्ते किसी आम गली के आम कुत्ते नहीं है, ये कुत्ते खास हैं।” (Taken from a Facebook user’s wall. I am not writing the name because I am using it as a characteristic response and not from one particular person alone.) Obviously this supporter is not ready to listen to any genuine and serious criticism and questioning of the government, BJP and Modi. Is he helping in a democratic debate? Is he actually challenging the critics of the government and BJP or simply discrediting himself? Is he not being abusive?

Kant gives us a few useful concepts in his essay “What is enlightenment?” to understand this situation. He writes “Enlightenment is man’s release from his self-incurred tutelage.” And to him tutelage is “man’s inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another.” And “Self-incurred is this tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another.” Have most vocal Indians given themselves into some kind of other tutelage to their chosen guardians? Are they making use of their own reason?

Further down in the essay he talks of “private” and “public” reason. He says by “the public use of one’s reason I understand the use which a person makes of it as a scholar before the reading public.” While “Private use I call that which one may make of it in a particular civil post or office which is entrusted to him.” Kant recognises that in private use of reason—say, as a government official, defence personnel, a Church official, etc.—one may have to accept some restrictions in speaking out. He says that “Many affairs which are conducted in the interest of the community require a certain mechanism through which some members of the community must passively conduct themselves with an artificial unanimity.” Examples for this may be as given above. But in public use of reason he argues for sharing one’s own opinion by a scholar, his/her opinion guided by his/her own reason alone, without any tutelage.

The people engaged in public debate in India are members of political parties and media houses who have their own policies and positions. One often wonders: are they speaking as public scholars and using their own reason or are going along the lines given by their respective masters? And what should general public do with the opinions and arguments advanced as per standard line of some political formations and organisations? What if such political lines demand avoiding certain questions and disregarding some facts and principles?

At present most of the voluble participants in the debate already seem to have taken some or other positions and conducting their thinking strictly on lines demanded by that position. If anything counter to that position surfaces the standard response is ignoring that particular argument or fact and dive straight in to the conclusions propounded by the guardians. Are these debates taking us all into self-incurred tutelage of our respective masters? Or are they enlightening us? Making us independent in our own judgment?

And the Trolls

At the end I would like to understand the phenomena of trolling. Ravish kumar has made a lot of “the Troll” in his above mentioned Prime Time episode. The most often complaint and fear one hears from the government biters is that of getting trolled. There is much in this which is beyond me. I need help from more knowledgeable people to get my head around this problem.

Let’s construct a scenario: suppose I write a piece which severely criticise some action or policy of the government or Modi or BJP. Then I notice that hundreds (if I am very famous may be thousands) of people react to my piece; in comments, on twitter, on Facebook, and so on. Suppose that they all condemn my piece. Some try to give arguments which are not very sound. Some try to provide counter facts which are wrong. Some others simply call me names like antinational, and advise me to go to, say, Pakistan. And lastly, some others start abusing and attacking my personal life.

The questions that come to my mind are:

  1. How do I know that I have not irked some public sentiment, and given the fact of accessibility of social media and general level of semiliterate Indian net user these are not just random people from the public? Or that there is some organiser of this troll attack who is targeting me?
    1. To make sure on these two points I must be able to trace the commenters to some IP addresses and see some threads of coordinated attack in all this. Is there evidence of this nature? Please share if there is.
    2. By the same token if I notice that there are some particular people who deride every single decision of the government about 10 times in a day, though never use abusive language, can I call them trolls as well?
  2. How is a troll a threat to me? What can this anonymous person who is abusing me on the social media do to me? Yes, it is irritating, insulting and infuriating. But how is it dangerous to me? Why should I stop from saying what I want to say because of these morons? Where does the fear factor come from?

If it is such a big factor and all the critics of the government fear this, these are important question. Any answers please?

In conclusion the questions this style to countering the government and BJP design raises in my mind is: can you refute stupidity by becoming more stupid? Can you counter bias by becoming more biased? Does poison really cure poison? Or will you have to be more logical, more balanced, more accurate and more rational in your attempts to counter all that is going on? This is not new, this question always assaults my mind each time I read exaggerated and biased analysis, each time a cacophony is raised which paints Indian society more black than it actually is. Are we aware that there are people who can make a distinction between genuine criticism and hyperbole? Who may be worried about the dangers of the government and want to fight that with fair reason? In last two years has exaggeration strengthened the supporters of the government or is it having any effect in mellowing it down? Or are here any signs that the critics are winning the support of silent voter? If not, do they need to rethink their style and strategy? Should they become more balanced and just in criticism? Should they respond to the arguments advanced by their opponents with less cunning and more reason? In other words should the opinion making sages of today debate like scholars who sum up, unravel, admit errors if any?

*********

2 Comments | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

Dumbing down a pliable workforce

August 10, 2016

Published in The Hindu, 10th August 2016

Rohit Dhankar

“Public policy,” according to Douglas Gomery, “is the making of governmental rules and regulations to benefit not one individual but society as a whole. It asks, what is the best way to conceive and evaluate policies aimed at the public as a whole and its various subgroups?” We are in the last leg of such a government-led exercise in education policy making. Therefore, it is pertinent to think what basic assumptions our proposed National Education Policy (NEP) 2016 uses.

When he advised the Turkish government on its education reform agenda a century ago, John Dewey said working out the particular actions and steps to be taken in the reform process is possible only if the government is clear about what social purposes education is supposed to serve, and what educational aims it wants to achieve. Without clarity on these two, it would be a fumbling reform fated to be abandoned at the advent of the next new idea without achieving any results.

  1. Winch echoes Dewey when he argues that if a public education system does not have clearly debated and articulated educational aims, it operates on covert aims. And that gives opportunity to the powerful sections of the society to direct the system for their own benefit. The marginalised sections, thus, lose faith in the system.

Lack of clearly in articulating aims could also be an evasion exercise, as R.F. Dearden argues, so that while everyone is involved in the particular reforms the direction is left to the chosen few.

Therefore, a proper analysis of aims of education in the draft NEP 2016 becomes imperative. Only then can we fully understand particular recommendations and proposed initiatives in it. The claim here is not that stated aims always determine education, it is rather that understanding covert aims is necessary to get a fuller grasp on action that the policy recommends. I have made an attempt to understand the aims of education in the current draft in the light of earlier two National Policies on Education (NPE 1968 and NPE 1986).

Two earlier policies on education

A quick analysis of the NPE 1968 and NPE 1986 reveal that the social purpose of education in both documents is closely connected with the national goals, or nation-building as some like to call it. The national goals are those of an economically prosperous nation that is democratic in character, culturally rooted but aware of shortcomings of its own culture, well-integrated internally and secure from outside aggression. They envision a pluralistic society in which equality, justice, liberty and dignity of all citizens are guaranteed. Social cohesion and fraternity among the citizens is seen as an important social goal. The policy and social ethos are based on secularism and scientific temper. The NPE 1968 emphasise human resource development, or economic aims of education, but keeps in mind the potential of education in creating a democratic society. The NPE 1986 emphasises the individual independence relatively more.

Both the earlier policies though list the social purposes as mentioned above under “role of education”. They are also very clear that to achieve these social purposes, education has to develop certain qualities and capabilities in the learners. Only citizens with those capabilities can achieve the defined social purposes. These capabilities of individuals, or proper aims of education, include democratic values, open-mindedness, appreciation of Indian culture, critical thinking and a sound base of knowledge that help them become active and contributing citizens. The aims or capabilities to develop in the learners are connected with the social goals or vision of the society.

New draft NEP 2016

The new draft NEP 2016 is substantially different in its vision of society, social purposes, understanding of aims of education and their articulation. It is neither overtly undemocratic nor overtly sectarian, but a close reading between the lines gives a very debatable picture.

The first striking difference is in the vision of society. The draft NEP 2016 is almost obsessed with the “fast-changing, ever-globalising, knowledge‐based economy and society” (KBES). It sees these changes as god-given and no critique of them in terms of impact on human life and wellbeing is attempted. For the policy it is a fact, the forces that bring these changes are unseen and unchallengeable; therefore, all that is left for India is to go with the flow and ‘cope’ with it. The document does mention social concerns, disparities, issues of social justice and democracy, etc.; but its eyes are fixed on what it calls “knowledge economy” and a cohesive society with a certain cultural hue. That culture is not to reinterpret or challenge or search for alternatives to the KBES, but only to wave a flag of different colour to say, “look we are here too”.

 

The authors of this document are conceptually confused about national goals (for example, creation of a just and equitable society), education department’s or system’s targets (for example, to bring all children to school) and educational aims (for example, inculcate values of justice and equality in the learners). They all are put in the same category of Educational Objectives. That in national policy gives a feeling of being directed by incompetent people, if nothing else. What the policy draft lists under the educational objectives are mostly targets of education system. Educational aims are scattered all over the document, and one has to collect them together in order to understand.

The collected aims fall under four broad categories: employable kills, cultural heritage, values and knowledge.

The thrust of the policy is clearly employable skills. Recommendations concerning skills dominate every section. It is understandable if the society is seen as KBES, then the most important task for education is only to prepare people who can be employed in it. The aims also make it imply clear that the skills are to cope in this system, not to challenge or modify or even to lead it.

 

The cultural heritage is seen as culture of ancient India. Though there is mention of cultural pluralism, diversity and tolerance, etc., but what is described at one place is only ancient Indian contribution to the wold of knowledge. With the authority of Sri Aurobindo there is also a hope and desire that the rest of the 21st century will belong to India, whatever that might mean. There are no overt statements that might bring the charge of sectarianism, but no indication of any other culture is given, and the characteristics that are listed are ones claimed for ancient Indian culture.

 

Almost everything is mentioned in values, from justice and equality to punctuality (a KBES value, perhaps). However, on a close reading of the passages where these values occur, one notices qualifications when citizenship and freedom are mentioned. The education under this policy will endeavour to “produce” “responsible citizens” who use “freedom responsibly”. If one reads this in the light of overwhelming emphasis on employable skills, knowledge for KBES and complete absence of critical thinking (mentioned twice in passing), then the citizen that seems to be desired is one who largely is amenable to the state and political power, who has full faith in the state’s goodness, and accepts the social structure. There is no place for a citizen who feels responsible if the state and society perpetrate injustice to large sections of society. No place for a citizen who makes noise, agitates, and opposes government actions and policies. It is a citizen who is more concerned with social cohesion, peace, and is tolerant towards the state.

 

The knowledge as envisaged in the policy draft is almost completely the one required for KBES. That is the knowledge to be imparted to deal with changing skill environment and lifelong learning of skills, to prepare for work force and to be productive. The knowledge which is to be generated is that which is applicable in the employable skills. Indian traditional knowledge seems to be the only exception, as that is needed for awareness of cultural heritage.

The knowledge which is required to understand the world, natural and social, to understand human life, to appreciate human achievements in aesthetic fields, for sheer intellectual delight, etc. is not indicated at all, as every single  mention of knowledge is also associated with the knowledge-economy or knowledge for skills.

Knowledge to gain insight into human existence, to enter into the complex ethical world, to make independent judgment and to decide what is worth living and dying for has no place. The knowledge to decide when to support and appreciate a state and the government, and when to resist and oppose it, is not required. In short, the knowledge to become a rationally autonomous being and still be completely embedded into the whole of humanity is conspicuous by absence.

 

As a conclusion, one can say that it is a policy to gear education to producing pliable citizens who work as the government says, believe it, obey it, produce but do not think and do not question. It is a policy to craft an education system that is to dumb down the citizenry. It is time for India again to remember that a just and functioning democracy squarely depends on citizens who can think clearly and critically and who can act on their convictions in the face of risks. Democracies are not sustained by obedient productive units in so-called knowledge based economies. However, that is precisely what our new NEP 2016 envisages.

******

Leave a Comment » | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

Vigilantism: developing a form of crowd-terrorism?

August 6, 2016

Rohit Dhankar

This morning I read an article in The Indian Express published on 5th August 2016, titled “In the name of the cow: Murder, flogging, humiliation of Muslims, Dalits”. It lists several instances when people (it seems all Muslims and Dalits) where either killed or thrashed or humiliated in varied ways on suspicion that they were somehow involved in cow slaughter or beef eating or beef trade. Most of these vigilantes it seems remained unpunished for their crimes. (I am assuming The Indian Express article is factual.)

Incidents of vigilante violence are common affair on Valentine day every year and in enforcing dress code on women and their eating in restaurants etc. have also been in the news often. Most of the perpetrators of these crimes remain unpunished and publicly express their resolve to continue their activities. Often they also seem to be proud of this obnoxious behaviour of theirs. This shows that the law enforcing agencies are giving them space to continue committing these crimes.

There is a vocal brigade of netas (many of them Members of Parliament) in BJP who not only defend such acts but praise them and issue threats, mainly to Muslims. The vigilante groups and these BJP netas clearly seem to be connected. If that is the case then the seemingly scattered and sporadic violence in the name of cow (and in one wave that of the nation, Bharat Mata, etc.) may not be spontaneous and unconnected. It might actually be planned, however loosely.

I have not been following this issue but do not know of any strong statement from the central government either to unequivocally condemning it or to stop this menace. Had it been the issue of one or two incidents one may still argue that the government need not issue statements but to curb such elements. But it is a pattern now, the government says almost nothing on it, and the pattern is growing more and more violent and menacing.

The question that comes to mind is: could this be a thought through strategy of mass training in crowd-terrorism?

Terrorism, as it is practiced today, most often is an act of a few individuals who cause high damage and at high risk to themselves. Because the risk to the life of the terrorist is very high it requires a mistaken preparedness for sacrifice and mistaken notion of bravery. A terrorist sees himself as a brave warrior for a cause. This requires a cause for which one is prepared to die. Which is possible only through faith and/or very high level of indoctrination or unbearable oppression that makes one feel that life is not worth living in this form. Or it involves all of them.

But if there is a community or group in which not many meet any of these conditions, where there is no faith or cause to defend in which one actually—as opposed to just professed—believes, then it becomes very difficult to produce terrorists. Or it takes very long time to create that fervour of faith or mentality of victimhood. But if the terrorism is given a crowd base where it is relatively difficult to single out a particular individual then the risk gets distributed and diffused. It still retains the character of expression of hatred and aggression, but since it is expressed collectively, the participants feel relatively safer. They can also handle the guilt—if and when their humanity surfaces—more easily.

The vigilante activity—if above argument is correct—resembles more and more a mass public training programme in crowed-terrorism. Targeting merely on suspicion creates an atmosphere of fear in the marked groups. Which is the main object of all terror. Ambiguity about the guilt of the most victims sustains the support base in the community; which is a necessary condition for any terrorist activity to survive.

The Hindu community has the first responsibility to stop and eradicate this vigilantism. Simply because it cannot flourish without internal support from the community. Also because it will harm the most Hindu community only. In other forms of terrorism the support base of communalised and active elements still remain relatively small. This crowd-terrorism communalises much larger sections of the community and requires much larger set of active elements.

It seems this is the time for ordinary Hindus—practising or otherwise—to stand up and speak. The religious leaders and politicians and so-called sadhus cannot stop it, many of them perhaps don’t want to stop it. If they (religious leaders and sadhus) speak against it they will use too many ifs and buts, which will make them sound more like its supporters. Explanations of a terrorist’s acts on the basis of being misguided or having mistaken perception of various pressures on his community or less respect paid to his community beliefs than required, etc. will sound like “justification of their acts”. First, there are very few people in the public who can make out “an explanation of a phenomena” from it’s “justification”. Second, most often whose who explain actually try to justify without dropping their own fig leaf.

********

Leave a Comment » | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

Defending terror in the name of human rights

August 5, 2016

Rohit Dhankar

It is reported in some sections of media that 50,000 people attended Burhan Wani’s funeral. The agitation triggered by his death took a toll of more than 30 lives including some security personnel; hundreds were injured by pallets fired on the agitators.

The funeral attendance by so many people and widespread agitation was used (is used) to prove that Kashmiris’ demand for so called azadi is legitimate. That Burhan Wani was a freedom fighter and not a terrorist. And pallet injuries were thought to be the evidence of cruelty of Indian forces, of the state and the nation.

This was (and perhaps is) the narrative taken up by many Facebook users who wanted to prove their liberal humanitarian credentials. (Fortunately discourse in print media is more sober, which takes into account sufferings of the Kashmiris, mistakes on the part of the state as well as points out conditions under which this highly disturbing drama is being played out.) This narrative was supported by supposed to be wise opinion makers by twitting that Bhagat Singh was also called the poster boy of Indian revolutionaries by the British press; therefore, (a hint at unstated conclusion, that) Burhan Wani is like Bhagat Singh, a freedom fighter.

Anyone who opposes or even wants to understand the basic principles, assumptions, and logic behind this discourse is immediately dubbed as “Hindutva-vadi”, “anti-Kashmiris” or “anti-Muslim”.

Not to be outdone the Hindutva warriors immediately declare any one remotely mentioning sufferings of the Kashmiris, accesses by the forces and mistakes of the Indian state. A meaningful social debate is made impossible by the two mutually opposing hardliners.

In this article my focus is on the three contentions of the supporters of Kashmiri agitation for azadi. However, before I come to that would like to mention there have been mistakes from the Indian state, there have been incidents of accesses and Kashmiri people have suffered long years of tense atmosphere as well as constant threat of untoward incidents; both from the forces as well as from the terrorists. The state and Indian society in general should find a way out of this problem by eliminating the injustice done as well as connecting at the emotional level. Dubbing everyone who speaks in favor of Kashmir struggle as anti-national is not only stupid, it is harmful for the democratic process in the country.

However, the most popular contentions of some radical opinion makers and their Facebook supporters still remain unsupportable. And those who speak in favor of struggle are equally guilty to going overboard.

That brings me to the three contentions.

Does the agitation in Kashmir prove that their demand for ‘azadi’ (whatever that might mean) is justified?

India has a solid legal basis to consider Kashmir an integral part of the country. It was made part of India by the instrument of accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh, who was a legal ruler of the territory at that time. Yes, there are some conditions like article 370 but they are being met. Plebiscite was not held because Pakistan refused to meet the conditions it accepted in the UN. India cannot be blamed for this.

The only basis that the supporters of Kashmiri agitation name is the agitation itself. “So many Kashmiris demand azadi therefore it is legitimate” goes the argument. Does any community living in a territory has the right to secede from a country at will? Can countries function like that?

I have dealt with this issue in detail in one of my earlier blogs here. In that blog I considered the issue of Kashmir being integral part of India from historical, legal, moral and pragmatic stand points. Interested people can see that article. In my view India is completely justified in considering Kashmir an integral part from these four perspectives. If that is the case the agitation is unjustified, and on top of that carefully fomented by Pakistan on religious basis. That provides no grounds for azadi whatsoever.

Burhan Wani as a freedom fighter?

If the demand for azadi itself is unjustified then Burhan Wani cannot be a freedom fighter. The most charitable opinion about him could be a somewhat misguided youth. If one looks at the interviews of his father, past and present, one can see the religious source of this poison very clearly.

He was commander of an Islamic terrorist organization. Hizb-ul-Mujahideen means “Party of Holy Warriors”. It wants J&K to become part of Pakistan. And it has always campaigned for Islamisation of Kashmir.

HM Emblem

It’s emblem (I must check the authenticity of this emblem, but seems to be the correct one at the time) has Quran supported by AK 47s. I do not know Arabic but do not have any doubt that the book shown here is supposed to be the Quran. (Would be grateful if someone who knows Arabic lets me know the correct meaning of the quote shown in the book. If it is not Quran, I would be willing to change my views on this particular point.)

For the sake of argument even if one accepts the argument that he was seen as freedom fighter by Kashmiris therefore he is one; as freedom fighter of one nation is after all can be a terrorist of another. If it is not just a formal and semantic quibble, then those who call him a freedom fighter and support him should also approve of the kind of nation he wanted to build had he been successful. Do they support Islamaizatin of Kashmir? Do they support separation of Kashmir from India to become part of Pakistan? And if they do, do they recognize the re-play of two nation theory in Indian history within 70 years?

Calling Burhan Wani a freedom fighter comes with this package of assumptions and implications. If his supporters accept it, they are harming secularism and democracy in India deliberately; if they are unaware of the implications they are supporting bigotry in their mindlessness.

The pallet injuries

The pallet injuries are splashed on social media as if it is an example of deliberate cruelty of the Indian security forces. As if firing the pallets at innocent people is an ab initio, as if it is the first cause in this dance of death. They seem to make it that the armed forces just started shooting at public without any reason, without any preceding events. “Since people received pallet injuries so the forces are cruel, the state is unjust, and the nation is abominable” seems to be the refrain. But the crowd burnt police stations, vehicles, killed securely personnel. How to control a crowd of 1000 people advancing on a police station? One has seen videos of youth showing bravery in pelting stones on the forces. Could there be a planner behind these youth who knows that the Indian forces will behave with restraint, therefore, they can attack them with impunity? The pallet injuries have to be seen in the context.

Presence of armed forces in Kashmir is not the cause of agitation, it is violent agitation what forced the state to send armed forces there. This agitation and violence killed people, competed ethnic cleansing, and threatened the integrity of the nation. That is why there are armed forced in Kashmir. There is no place for detailed historical analysis of the problem here, but it was created by Zinnah-attitude (a not so religious leader using religion for political purposes) that Sheikh Abdullah often lapsed into, the fact that Kashmir is a Muslim majority state, and the Pakistani determination to separate Kashmir from India. The historical context of dismissal of popularly elected governments and rigging of elections in Kashmir is not that innocent and plain. At each stage some people were playing the separatist card with impunity.

Result of this support to Burhan Wani and agitation

This emboldens the terrorists. They get an assurance that if they are killed, a section of well-meaning  Indian population will try to prove that they were not terrorists, but freedom fighters. Therefore, there is a possibility of armed forced avoiding hurting them. Since they themselves have no such restraint, they will kill civilians and armed forces personnel with more impunity.

If they are captured, proved guilty in the court; then there shall be arguments that they were innocent and the punishment awarded to them is unjust. And will be made heroes, ghar ghar se nikalenge.

More Kashmiri young men will join their ranks, and the foreign fighters will feel safer to come to add in this jihad.

The hardliners in Kashmir will gain greater prominence, will feel legitimated, and moderates will become weaker, will feel unsure of themselves.

The resolve of the India public to defend Kashmir will weaken. This will reflect in the state action.

Armed forces will get demoralized.

And all this due to a stand taken by accolade hunters on the basis of spurious information, misunderstood principles of justice and false propaganda.

To resolve the Kashmir issue with sensitivity to Kashmiri people we need clarity of mind, compassion in heart and determination of action. Extreme stand on either side will harm the nation as well the Kashmiri people. Let’s realize that nation is much larger than the Kashmir. Also the current fashion of deriding anyone who uses the term “nation” is nothing but imbecility.

******

6 Comments | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

A rotting system

July 12, 2016

Published in Deccan Herald on 11th July 2016

Rohit Dhankar

The report of the Committee for Evolution of the New Education Policy (NEP) headed by T S R Subramanian is finally in the public domain in spite of hesitation of the then Human Resource Development Minister Smriti Irani, thanks to the former cabinet secretary himself. One should perhaps take it only as a report that will be an important input in the final policy formulation.

The report, however, claims to be the policy itself at many places. For example, after listing eight challenges to Indian education, it declares “The New Education Policy has addressed all these challenges”, which implies this document itself is the policy. There are many such assertions. In spite of it, though, we should consider it only as a report.

There is much in this report that should be discussed, and immediately, before the policy is finalised. This article, however, is only to note a bold admission of problems at the national level institutions directly under the HRD Ministry. In Chapter VIII, the report comments on six of them: All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT), University Grants Commission (UGC), Indira Gandhi National Open University (Ignou), National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) and National University of Educational Planning and Administration (NUEPA).

The report does not include National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE) in this chapter, perhaps because its status is different as a constitutional body. However, it does have comments on functioning of NCTE elsewhere. Overall, the report gives very useful information which can be turned into insight into understanding these institutions.

If one believes the assessment of the report, then all these apex institutions have failed in fulfilling their mandate, though some may claim partial success. The AICTE, as per the report, “has largely failed to act as a regulator” which is its mandate. It has allowed proliferation of substandard and high capitation fee charging institutions; as a result, only “20% of our engineering graduates are employable”.

While the UGC is credited for issuing “a series of regulations for achieving better quality and efficient management,” the report has noted that the commission has not been able “to ensure effective enforcement of those regulations.” It recommends that “When the new National Higher Education Act is enacted, the UGC Act should be allowed to lapse”, meaning scrapping the body, perhaps justifiably.

The Ignou while has done some good work, has also failed in regulating long distance teacher education programmes. As “in teacher-education field,” there is a “proliferation of long distance teaching shops, offering degrees or diplomas basically in exchange of money, with minimal assurance of quality or teaching-learning standards”.

The report envisages an important role for open learning at school level as it recommends creation of “two new national level examination systems to certify Class X and Class XII equivalent achievement”. However, it is quite clear that NIOS could not be proposed to be a nodal agency for that job “in view of its doubtful record of performance, and inability to establish itself as a credible agency”.

The NUEPA is normally considered an efficient institution, but the committee thinks otherwise. The committee expected NUEPA to provide some research done on important educational issues, but “Put simply, the Committee found very little serious examination of fundamental issues facing school/higher education in India undertaken by the University.” Actually the report says that private organisations have done a better and more relevant job.

The report notes some successes of NCERT in teacher education like four year integrated BA/B Ed etc, but also thinks that “the institution has been unable to cope with the massive volume of changes around it”. The NCTE as per the report is, guilty of proliferation of substandard teacher education institutions. And thinks that “State governments and the NCTE were partners in approving such institutions, most of which were nothing better than degree shops.” The six apex institutions of the country which are supposed to guide and support education, then, are nothing but largely failed white elephants. Of course, the country knew this, but corroboration by an MHRD appointed committee is important. This should make the government wake up and look into its own functioning.

Lack of capable staff

The report notes lack of capable staff in adequate numbers in these institutions. Working of many of them has never been assessed by any independent agency. They lack autonomy and seriousness to work. And some, like NCTE, have serious irregularities. When we want to improve quality of education, which according to the report is the main thrust of the NEP, lack of adequate expertise in various segments of education in these bodies indicates a national level intellectual deficiency. The report says nothing regarding how this deficiency can be removed, or how to prepare good quality experts.

The situation of the apex institutions by this account seems to be no better than the schools. And before one blames the schools, may be one can say that the rot spread from the top. However, when the report talks of low quality and indifferent functioning of elementary education, there is frequent reference to teacher capabilities, attitudes, commitment, accountability and political interference. This is instructive to note that in regard to apex institutions though capabilities and shortage of staff is mentioned, attitude, commitment and accountability are not seen as problems. In fact, the report sees lack of autonomy as a problem there, but not lack of commitment!

It is common knowledge that the heads of most of the institutions mentioned above are political appointees and that should have an impact on their functioning as well as the capabilities of the people. But the report prefers to be silent on that. It also seems to assume that the right attitude to implement the mandate of the institution and accountability in these institutions is no problem, it is a problem only in the case of teachers. One wonders whether a rotting head can diagnose its own ailment!

******

Leave a Comment » | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

Should Zakir Naik be ‘stopped’?

July 9, 2016

Rohit Dhankar

There is a debate in the media whether Zakir Nail should be ‘stopped’. It is not clear what stopped means here: is it banned? Or should not be allowed? Or should be countered through argument? There also seem to be a hashtag #StopZakirNaik. I tried to see on this what people are saying. But found it too much in snippets which require a history of following to make sense of it. Therefore, it was useless for me.

Zakir Naik, for those who do not know, is an Islamic preacher. His supporters (and he himself) also call him a scholar of comparative religions. One of the terrorists killed in Dhaka restaurant attach it seems was a fan of Zakir Naik, and Bangladesh is investigating if he was inspired by him. The debate has started in this context.

To just get a glimpse I looked at a few snippets of news items and also watched Arnab Goswami’s cheekh-chillahat which he calls ‘debate’, a gross insult to the term and human intelligence. In this programme the anchor as well as many other participants wanted to “stop Zakir Nair”; there are also some who are against “stopping” him. Whatever stopping might mean.

Some of the charges that I could find on the internet against Zakir Naik are listed below:

  1. His organisation Islamic Research Foundation (IRF) is registered under FCRA, it takes foreign funds and is involved in religious conversions.
  2. Zakir Naik runs a TV Chanel called Peace TV which does not have licence, and is banned, still cable operators show Piece TV.
  3. He ridicules other religions.
  4. He claims that Islam is the only true religion, all other religions are false.
  5. He supported Osama Bin Laden and still supports terrorism.
  6. Many terrorists are inspired by him.
  7. He justified ISIS terrorists using female captives as sex slaves.
  8. He converts people to Islam and shows that on TV and in videos on his site.

The first two are issues of following the law of the land. If organisations taking foreign funds under FCRA are not allowed to use those funds for conversion and political activity, then IRF should be investigated and the law should take its course, as the saying goes. Similarly if he is still airing programme on Piece TV in spite of it being banned, he should be punished according to the law.

Zakir Niak does ridicule other religions and openly says that Islam if the only true religions, and Allah is the only true God. But so says the Islamic theology, including Quran. The protestations that Islam does not consider itself the only true religion are all wrong, it does. But so does Christianity. It is only Indic religions which don’t make this claim. One does not know how long they will remain open to the idea of एकं सद्विप्राह बहुदा वदन्ति. Zakir Naik is being only true to Islam when he says that there is only one true God, Allah; and only one true religion, Islam.

This is also true that he ridicules other religions. One can take two attitudes to it: one, if his ridicule crosses the boundary of relevant law he should be prosecuted, why ask straight for the ban? If that is what is meant by “stopping”. But a more liberal stand would be that ridiculing religions is a right of all citizens. Many of them, including Islam, have plenty of things fit to ridicule, and oppose.

His support for Islamic terrorism is somewhat circuitous, but it is there. Even his explanation in the media to absolve himself proves that. There is a clip in which he says that he supports Osama Bin Laden as the twin tower was an “inside” job by America and Osama is only terrorising the terrorist. His explanation: “This clipping, yes it is me saying it but it is out of context. I said a terrorist is a person who terrorises someone. I also gave an example that a policeman terrorises a robber. So, for a robber a policeman is a terrorist. In this context, every Muslim should be a terrorist to the anti-social element.” This is a spacious argument, and also shows the level of Dr. Naik’s logical acumen. America according to him is terrorising Muslims, therefore, Muslims should terrorise America. One hears similar arguments about India. It is simply a more ganwaroo version of the relatively sophisticated argument Indian intellectuals use all the time: that Islamic terrorism is a creation of structural injustice, that it is an expression of Muslim rage against injustices mated out to them. Poor Dr. Naik does not have that sophisticated language and those spacious theories to buttress his claim. This idea cannot be defeated by banning. Nor is it justified to ban such claims, they have to be examined and defeated in a fair public debate.

One does not know how far the claim that many terrorists are inspired by him is true. But as long as he does not directly abet, add and train terrorists it would be unfair to ban his speeches simply because some terrorists were his fans and said that they were inspired by him. A Hindu terrorist may be inspired by Gita (I know no such example of anyone saying this, but it is theoretically possible), and scores of terrorists actually say that they are inspired by the Quran. Would one ban Quran for that? Would one start a campaign to ban Gita if tomorrow someone says that he is inspired by Gits to commit a terrorist act? This is as good a logic as Zakir Naik uses.

He does justify ISIS terrorists making captured women sex slaves. But he justifies it on the basis of Quran. Chapter 23 of Quran begins with describing how the believers should behave and “who shall inherit the Firdaus (Paradise)” 23.11. In this description it says: “And those who guard their chastity (i.e. Private parts, from illegal sexual activity). Excerpt from their wives or (the slaves) that their right hand possesses, –for then they are free from blame”. (Verses 5 and 6). Maulana Azad claims that it is only after marrying the slave women. But then why mention them separately? After marriage they are “wives”? Dr. Naik also claims that the Quran’s treatment of slaves and prisoners of war is much superior to the UN charter.

In India one has the right to preach one’s religion and to convert people to it; as long as no force (and perhaps material enticement) is involved. Unless one proves that he used force or enticement (in case it is illegal, I am not sure) or cheating one cannot ban his conversions, even if they are shown on TV. Yes, in investigation can be started if what he shows on the TV is only a stage-managed drama (it looks like that) or real conversion. If it is found that it is only a drama, then he can be prosecuted for cheating people.

Zakir Nair’s arguments and logic

One example of his logic I have already given above, the policemen being a terrorist for a robber, etc. will just give one more, one can collect hundreds in his videos. Someone asked him that he preaches his religion and converts people to it freely in India, and most of the democracies allow this. But the Muslim majority countries do not allow preaching of other religions in their domains, what does he say on this? His answer is a classic of stupidity. In about 15 minutes circuitous laffajji what he says is this: In a classroom when a teacher teaching mathematics allows only one answer to 2+2, and that is 4. He does not allow it to be “5” or “3” or anything else. Because it is certain and it is the only truth. In a country once Islam is established no other religion can be allowed and the country has now achieved the truth. Allowing anything else will be deviating from the truth. This is exact meaning of that he said but not exact words. This shows the man’s quality of mind and level of understanding. He is not even honest. When the same question was asked after his video lecture in Oxford union all he sad is that yes, some countries do not allow, but it is their matter. He did not have a courage to repeat what he openly says in Bombay in a video lecture being transmitted to Oxford.

He is most famous for quoting from scriptures of religions other than Islam. Mostly to show that Muhamman is mentioned of predicted in Vedad, and other religious books. Actually all his quotes, verse numbers including the order in which he rattles them out come from only one book “Muhammad in World Scriptures”. It is written by an Ahmadia Muslim Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi, and was first published in Urdu in 1936. The only credit Dr. Naik can take for these quotes is that of cramming it very well and rattling it very fast. None of the quotes actually support what he is trying to prove, this is only a trick for cheat gullible public.

But in spite of all this the most that can be demanded by the public is an investigation into his illegal actions related to his TV channel, his use of foreign funds and if he has any direct link with the terrorists. Banning his lectures or arresting him (on the charges and evidence that is in public domain, as far as I know) would be an attack on freedom of speech, and against the right to preach one’s religions. Zakir Naik’s views are ill-argued, bigoted, and obnoxious. His ‘scholarship’ is just a pretention. Zakir Naik is a bad news for humanity. But curtailing his freedom of expression would be a worst news for democracy and for humanity. Therefore, such people have to be allowed and youngsters have to be helped in seeing through their ill argued proclamations.

******

9 Comments | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

Religion as a bully

July 5, 2016

Rohit Dhankar

In small towns and provincial colleges there used to be a sub-species (in more than one senses) of homo-sapiens called “dada”. It was “sub” in the sense of a “sub-set” as well as “less than”, less than human at the least in thinking and moral sensibility. It was a bully. In small towns the dadas indulged in land encroachment for themselves as well as on behalf of their protected. As land grabbers they made money as well as created an aura of invincibility in the face of government authority and police. This also helped in creating fear. Everyone was scared of them but called them “gundas” behind their back, which was an apt description.

They also proclaimed themselves as guardians of the ijjat and rutba of some or other politician or some old powerful feudal family. If someone said anything which they considered ‘insulting’ to their malik they used the fear created in the society and invincibility in the face of police to browbeat that person into an apology or abject capitulation.

Two recent incidents in the newspapers draw a close parallel between religion and these dadas or gundas. One is concerned with temples demolished in Vijayawada (Andhra Pradesh) to widen the roads. I could find no news item which talks about the legal status of the ownership of land on which these temples were built. But going by the way temples mushroom allover India in the middle of roads and on unused government land it is almost certain that they were built on encroached property. They obviously were a serious traffic hazard and perhaps caused accidents. The government demolished a few of them in order to widen the roads and ensure smooth traffic flow.

This angered the Hindu swamis and BJP and they started protesting. As soon as the protests began the AP government capitulated and promised to rebuild the demolished temples on the same spots.

This is the usual story about middle-of-the-road-temples. Some smart fellow builds a temple on the road, no one is ready to stop him because of fear of ‘hurting religious feelings’, temple becomes established. It becomes a traffic nuisance and source of income for the encroacher.

About two years back Vasundara Raje government removed a large number of such illegally built temple from roads. One felt happy that the roads became better and traffic flow smoother. But then one leant that all these illegal occupiers of government property were allotted alternative plots of land for free to relocate their temples. In the name of religion first illegally occupy government land, cause serious nuisance and then get legally allotted lend for free in the bargain to remove that nuisance. This seems to be the modus operandi. The religion is clearly acting as a bully here.

Another news item in The Hindu (5th July 2016) was about so called sacrilege of Quran in Malerkotla of Punjab. This has resulted in arrest of a few people and a police investigation against an AAP MLA. Earlier in this incident some Muslims “resorted to burning of vehicles and damaging property following rumours that torn pages of the holy book were found in a cemetery”.

“The mob set buses, cars and other vehicles on fire and damaged some buildings. Police had to fire in the air to control the mob” says a newspaper report.

What do these incidents communicate?

The usual recourse to “hurt feelings” is not enough to explain these happenings. The pattern is too obvious and they happen with alarming regularity. Earlier there was tension and burning of shops in a UP town after someone saw  Arabic written on some paper plates. There was tension in Jaipur on the issue of removal of a temple which was serious traffic hazard.

Nor can this phenomena be explained by that trite statement that “it is not religion, it is the politicians using religion for their own nefarious purposes”.

One may ask: if religion can be used so often and so successfully for nefarious purposes then shouldn’t there be something fundamentally wrong or even evil about religion? It must have something in its structure that makes it a fit instrument of villainy. Now can anything fundamentally holy and unblemished be used so successfully for such a long time for nefarious purposes?

These kinds of incidents are actually to create fear of all things religious in the common people’s mind. This is to make religion above the law, above humanity, above the good of the people. It is to create an aura of invincibility in the face of the law of the land so that it can perpetually bully people. It is plain attempt to dominate. Politician is only a small unscrupulous and selfish player, the real bully is the religion itself. One may ask: but religion is not a person, how can it be a bully? Well, religion is ‘personified’ in the form of the deity, in the form of a book or a building. And it has its viceroys who act in its name. And a whole section of the society which draws benefits and privileges from its operations back those viceroys.

Contradictory acts

If the places of so-called worship are so holy that they cannot be removed why built them illegally on someone else’s property? How can something built stealthily in an illegal manner be holy? How can greed, unconcern for inconvenience to people, immorality of unjust occupation generate piety? What kind of god likes stealth, greed, injustice, and troubling innocent people? No, it is neither hurt feelings nor holiness; it is plain tactics of browbeating people into unquestioning submission. The ruckus created on these incidents is to maintain that fear, the tactics of the Bombaiya films’ bhailog: “we rule as long as the fear exists, so keep the fear intact” as they say in filmy dialogues.

If a book, Quran, is so holy to some believers that they can go on a rampage on seeing its torn pages why do they distribute it free on some occasions on the road side? They distribute it especially to non-believers. Should something so holy, dear to heart to the extent that one can burn property of other people and even try to kill if it is disrespected, be distributed to non-believers? Why make it freely available in the market place for a few rupees? What is the guarantee that any one who buys it will respect it? Is it sold with that condition? Why not keep Quran strictly within authorised safe sanctuaries if disrespect to it infuriates some believers?

Suppose someone buys a copy of Quran along with Capital, Nyaya Sutras and Critique of Pure Reason. And places them in his bookshelf side by side. Further, suppose termites damage the bookshelf and many of the books in it including all the four mentioned above. What is this non-believer supposed to do with these damaged books? Can he throw them out with all other books which he loved to read and keep as prised possessions? Is throwing The Quran out sacrilege? If one throws out termite eaten copies of Capital or The Nyaya Sutras or Critique of Pure Reason is he being disrespectful to these books which all are much richer in wisdom and knowledge than Quran? If throwing out damaged copies of these books is not disrespect to them why is that disrespect to Quran? A non-believer can read the Quran with the same intention of gaining insight into human thought as he reads other books. The rage generated and pretended in the name of Quran is simply a way of believers to impose their own attitudes on unwilling others. This is curtailing their freedom as building temples in the middle of roads is.

They have to be stopped. But bullies never stop as long as one keeps on surrendering before them. Bullies stop only when they are shown their proper place.

******

2 Comments | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

Is Lord Rama turning into a Muhammad?

June 24, 2016

Rohit Dhankar

When I was a child in my 100% Hindu village one could openly condemn Rama for Sita’s agnipariksha and later vanavasa even after passing her through fire. I remember people (mainly youngsters) discussing these things without ever bothering about repercussions or anyone getting angry. The only rejoinder which came from some youth was “you do not understand the Ramayana and have no bhakti in your heat. That is why talking like fools”. Which was fine, by the discussing group, they just laughed.

When I was in college and university questioning Sita’s fidelity to Rama was no taboo among some groups and they did not hide their conversations from any one.  I am sure, though have no references at the moment, that there must be plenty of books and article where killing of Shambuk, shooting arrow at Bali from behind a tree, agbipariksha and vanavasa of Sita are seen as acts which do not behoove a Maryada-purushottam, and make Rama’s moral code rather suspect in the eyes of a modern reader.

Therefore, the news item in The Hindu of 24th June 2016 which says that Professor B.P. Mahesh Chandra Guru of the University of Mysore is arrested, and as a consequence of arrest suspended, for derogatory remarks against Rama made me wonder. Looking into several news items one could ascertain that on 3rd January 2015 Professor Guru while speaking on human rights remarked that “Ram of Ramayana had violated human rights. He suspected Sita’s fidelity and victimised her. I see this as a violation of human rights.” (Catchnews, 22nd June 2016)

From this single line of his speech one cannot really say what was his purpose or argument. If he wanted to make a point similar to, say, that the morality of religious mythology may not be compatible with today’s human rights and, therefore, can no more be treated as an ideal, then it makes perfect sense. However, imposing human rights on Rama as such is somewhat silly. In either case it is no crime to be arrested and victimised for. Actually he is perfectly within his rights in comparing Rama’s conduct with human rights; whether Rama bhaktas like it or not.

Actually Sita herself says something much harsher on the occasion of agniparikaha. When Rama shamelessly tells her that he conquered Lanka and killed Ravana to salvage his own honour and not for any love for Sita, and that now she is free to go anywhere, with Lakshamana, Vibhishana or anyone else, Sita gives a fitting reply.

One of the many nasty barbs Rama addresses to Sita is “Assuredly Ravana, beholding thy ravishing and celestial beauty, will not have respected thy person during the time that thou didst dwell in his abode.” (The Valmiki Ramayana, Translated by Hari Prasad Shastri. Published by Santi Sadan, London, 1952. Yuddh-kanda Uttararadha, Page 336.)

Sita brings to his notice the situation she was in, and says “If my limbs came in contact with another’s, it was against my will, O Lord, and not through any inclination on my part; it was brought about by fate. That which is under my control, my heart, has ever remained faithful to thee; my body was at the mercy of another; not being mistress of the situation, what could I do? If despite the proofs of love that I gave thee whilst I lived with thee, I am still a stranger to thee, O Proud Prince, my loss is irrevocable!” I find it interesting that Sita does not hint at the modern Bambaiya film dialogue “main Ganga ki tarah pavitra hun”. She makes an argument that pavitrata is an issue of the heart, and not of body. Then she tells Rama the Maryada-purushottam “But thou, O lion among Men, by giving way to wrath and by thus passing premature judgement on a woman, hast acted like a worthless man.” (ibid, page 337. Emphasis added)

Calling Rama a “worthless man”, by his own wife is harsher than pointing out that he violated human rights. And that is right there is the Valmiki Ramayana itself. So what kind of derogatory comments did Professor Guru make against the supposed to be Maryada-purushottam?

We are forgetting that Ramayana is quite open in discussing its characters’ conduct and often without mincing words. Valmiki seems to respect freedom of ideas and speech more than we do today, at least at places if not throughout the text.

This has been a tradition in Islam that one cannot question Muhammad, cannot say anything against him in public without severe retribution. In recent times Lokamat issue where they only published a cartoon with words in Arabic on a piggybank picture with the meaning “Muhammad is his prophet” is an example. The offices of the paper were vandalised, and the paper had to apologise. Kamalesh Tiwari for calling Muhammad a homosexual is languishing in jail. One can site dozens of examples. The tradition is very old. And is very robust even today.

It seems Rama is losing his cool and learning very fast from Muhammad in the recent times. Between two of them (and of course Bharat Mata, Gaumata and all that) perils of thinking people in India seem to be set to increase. Keep your fingers crossed—and safe—ladies and gentlemen with a mind.

******

1 Comment | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »