Is understanding necessary before criticizing?: A response to Mr. Parth Shah

April 22, 2016

Rohit Dhankar

An article titled “A lesson in hidden agendas” written by me was published in The Hindu on 26th March 2016. Mr. Parth Shah of Centre for Civil Society and a great champion of so called school choice has written a rejoinder to that article, titled “Ideology Masquerading as Research”. This note is a response to Mr. Shah’s rejoinder.

The central objection to my article that Mr. Shah has is stated clearly, that the article “is a case study in ideology masquerading as research”. Further down Mr. Shah repeats his ideology argument or the term ideology nine more times in his less than 600 word rejoinder! Therefore, it is appropriate to make an attempt to understand this term ‘ideology’, even if it takes some effort and space.

The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (SEP) distinguishes two kinds of concepts of ideology, (and The Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy makes similar point in somewhat different language). One kind, it calls “liberal concepts of ideology” and broadly defines them as “an action-oriented system of beliefs” on authority of Daniel Bell. The SEP notes “the fact that ideology is action-oriented indicates its role is not to render reality transparent, but to motivate people to do or not do certain things”. Other kind of concepts of ideology it calls “Radical concepts” which can roughly be characterised as “… ideology, far from being a science, … or any set of action-oriented beliefs … is rather inherently conservative, quietist, and epistemically unreliable. Ideology conserves by camouflaging flawed social conditions, giving an illusory account of their rationale or function, in order to legitimate and win acceptance of them.”

Mr. Shah seem to be taking ideology in the second, radical and pejorative sense. It may give him a momentary satisfaction to dub my article as an ideological attempt to “camouflaging flawed social conditions” etc.; but he should know that this concept of ideology comes from the Marxist tradition. And in that tradition it is argued that “ideology exists to protect … social conditions from attack by those who are disadvantaged by them. Capitalist ideologies give an inverted explanation for market relations, for example, so that human beings perceive their actions as the consequence of economic factors, rather than the other way around, and moreover, thereby understand the market to be natural and inevitable.” (Emphasis added) It could be easily shown that Mr. Shah’s rejoinder to my article is doing exactly that.

I, however, will take the term ideology in the first sense where it is “an action-oriented system of beliefs … to motivate people to do or not do certain things”. This could be read as a neutral definition of the term, and could work for or against disadvantaged people depending on the content of those beliefs. In this sense my article is certainly to motivate people to do something—protect and improve the public education system; and “not to do certain” other things—to handover our education system to private profiteers. There is no masquerading as something else, nothing hidden, the article is plainly to argue this point, be it ideological or otherwise.

I am taking this position openly because if ideology is understood in this sense (liberal sense) then no research can give any direction for policy making without taking help from ideology. Research, in its best form, is wedded to ‘epistemic truth’; and epistemic truth alone can never give you direction for public policy without help from political values. Political values can be said to be coming from ideology. Therefore, ideology is a necessary system of action oriented beliefs and values that can use research as a tool to determine education policy. It is ideology that is the master, research is only a sub-serving tool. Mr. Shah uses an ideology that favours the market and profit making at the cost of public education, I use an ideology that favours public education and wants to guard the society from wolfish profiteering tendencies in the public education. We both are ideological in this sense, but I believe my ideology is for greater common good and his ideology is for market forces, and clams that market forces enhance greater common good.

Mr. Shah’s charge of “ideology masquerading as research” is committing the category mistake of describing my article as ‘research’. It is not, repeat—not, a research article. It is an ethical and political argument made in favour of public education and against handing over education of our children to market; it concludes “[t]he tirade against the PES and RTE is a classic case of giving the dog a bad name with intention to kill it, so that a wolf of their choice could replace it in the name of guarding the house”. The article only uses some claims from research studies, in itself it is an ethical and political argument; and uses democratic principle as the bedrock of the argument. And Mr. Shah should know that policy issues and large scale educational reform issues are essentially ethical and political. Research is nothing but an information gathering tool in such decisions. Therefore, nothing is “masquerading as research” here. It is the ethical position that the ‘ideology’ (if I am allowed to use the term) of democracy demands and supports.

The second charge Mr. Shah wants to lay at my door is “using classic debating tactic of shifting the ground” on the basis of my statement that public education system needs fixing, and then talking about problems with private schools. This is gross misreading of the article or being too attached to one’s own hopes and positions. I open my article by plainly stating that the Public Education System (PES) and RTE are under attack from certain quarters. Then, to be fair, I note that both PES and RTE may need fixing, but the attacks are still not justified. And then go on to define and refute those attacks. There is no sifting ground here, the article stays course steadily; only it does not fulfil Mr. Shah’s desire, which he cherishes on his own accord, without any indication form my article. All I can do is recommend Mr. Shah to read the article again a bit more carefully.

His third charge is that I “have low respect for the readers who are expected to believe that attack on private education is same as improving state education”. My article expresses no such misgiving at all. It is a refutation of arguments to allow and even help with public money those private schools which don’t even fulfil the norms stipulated by RTE. These schools are being tom-tomed as better alternative to PES on various spurious grounds. I am arguing against those grounds. It is necessary to take false wind out of spurious claims, and that is what I am doing, not at all saying that criticising private schools will improve PES automatically, for that one has to make separate efforts. To use my metaphor, I am in this article only trying to block the wolf’s entry so that the faithful dog gets a chance to survive and revive. This is either a deliberate misrepresentation by Mr. Shah or his failure to read the article properly.

It’s true that even after more than 60 years of independence the government schools are not doing well. But it is wrong to say that the governments attempted reforms properly and with political and administrative will. And Mr. Shah should know that public systems which are providing essential public goods cannot be abandoned simply because they don’t function well, their failure is no argument for abandoning them. We have no alternative but to improving them, including PES.

His next charge on me is that in this article I am attacking people’s choice. I am making an argument in my article that choice is not random uninformed picking up. Choice involves a deliberate well-informed judgment. That requires availability of information, understanding of the criteria for making judgment and freedom to choose. The situation in the market and society at the moment do not show much hope for fulfilling these conditions. If he wants to refute this argument he should show that these conditions are fulfilled or that these conditions are not necessary for informed choice. He is doing neither, simply repeating a market friendly slogan. Second, we do debate choices made by people, even criticise them. Choices made by people on female foeticide are routinely criticised and banned. People’s choices are not always sacrosanct, neither are they always wise. Criticising them does not mean declaring oneself wiser than others, it simply means opening a democratic debate to bring unexamined beliefs under conscious scrutiny. I wonder if Mr. Shah is aware that there may be a conflict between the parental choice and child rights as articulated in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and that there is a huge debate whether parents can be allowed to give any kind of education that they want to their children.

Choice is more than just leaving people at the mercy of capital dominated market. And therefore, private schools have to be regulated. Those which do not meet the minimum norms have to be closed down, exactly as quack doctors’ clinics have to be closed down. And that is not at all attacking people’s choices, it is protecting them from evils of the unregulated market.

Mr. Shah writes “[t]he one idea he does offer to improve state education actually trivialises the problem itself.” Then he claims that I am saying that changing a few clauses in the RTE act will solve the problem of educational quality, and grandly declares me out of touch of reality of government system. What can I say on this? Should I declare him out of touch with printed word? As anyone who reads the whole relevant paragraph will immediately see that it is making an argument against the cries of repealing RTE because it does not specify norms for learning standards. In this paragraph I give examples of many other legislations that are not implemented properly and may have lacunas, and we do not repeal them, we improve them by amendments and try to implement better. Here I am not talking of improving the learning standards by amending the RTE, I am talking of removing the lacuna in the text of RTE. Any normal reader will get that straight, but not Mr. Shah. Careful reading is a cultivated habit, not an ideological posturing.

Mr. Shah’s unfounded tirade continues, he accuses me of quoting from a research report “students in private schools are less likely to belong to low caste groups…which means that they are less inclusive.” And then inferring on this quote’s basis that “the repeated claims of better learning in private schools are unfounded.” And asks grandly “How does that follow?!” Well it does not, not at all, not from this quote; and no one claimed that. This paragraph in my article quotes two studies for two different purposes. One is a claim that the researchers “find insufficient evidence to claim that children in private schools outperform those in public schools in India… better data are needed”. No better learning in private schools follows from this. The lines Mr. Shah quote are just an additional punch to show that they are also non-inclusive to boot. Again he is accusing me for his own misreading!

Then Mr. Shah says “India Human Development Survey shows that students are more likely to be ‘beaten’ in government than private schools.” And goes on that form this it cannot be demanded that they should be closed, rather that they should be given time to improve. Good enough. And then comes the million rupee question: “If government schools should be given time and resources to do better, why private schools not be given the same opportunity.” Should we equate government schools and private school then? Should we equate slow progress in eradicating culturally accepted corporal punishment with non-compliance in infrastructure and teacher qualification norms as per RTE? The government schools should be given time and resources: 1. because it is the constitutional duty of the state to provide good education to every child, and the state under the greed and pressure of profiteers cannot be allowed to absolve itself from that duty. Private schools have no such duty. 2. Because public education system is the only mechanism to reach the last child. Private education neither wants nor can do this job. 3. Because education requires development of democratic values and social concerns in addition to marketable skills and private schools cannot do that. 4. Because the state funds are public money and the state schools are public property, it is the same owner. Private schools are owned by individuals and taxpayers’ money cannot be given to them for their own benefit. 5. Because state schools are duty bound to admit every child. And private schools are not. 6. Because even if they are not performing too well at the moment they are not out to cheat the public by false promises; and private schools are. The private ventures cannot be built on public funds, therefore private schools cannot be supported by the government money.

This question of Mr. Shah brings his ideology out in the open, and it is the second kind of ideology, not the benign one I have used in my argument earlier.

Then Mr. Shah as per his own admission finds a gem. He thinks that he has clinched the argument. He quotes part of my argument in which I claim that “PES conceptually can be better if managed well” in inculcating democratic and human values, “while the private system has it in its DNA” that it cannot inculcate those values “as it has to make profit on fees. For low-end private schools to do better on this count is impossible even in theory.” I say this after making an argument that to make profit at low fee, the private schools necessarily have to indulge in unethical practices of cheating the teachers, cutting corners, monopolising business of textbooks, school uniforms, transport, etc. Children studying in such atmosphere and listening to their parents discussing these issues, seeing the conditions of their teachers are socialised into a certain kind of ethics, which is unhealthy. Low fee charging private schools have no way of getting out of this problem as long as they want to make profit. Now, this argument may be wrong or right. But it is not said that it is based on research. It is a speculative argument on the basis of amount realised from the fee, possible school expenditures and possible profit margin. Mr. Shah accuses me of saying that it is based on research. I don’t claim that at all. What is based on research in this argument is that “The teachers” in many such schools “are paid less than minimum unskilled labour wages legislated by various State governments”. Rest of the argument is normative and speculative. However, it is a sound argument, not easy to dismiss. And this argument comes to refute the private lobbyist claim that per-unit cost for learning achievement is less in the private schools. This is a spurious and untenable claim as does not count the hidden costs.

Since I argue in this manner Mr. Shah thinks that he has an irrefutable argument in his punch line, which goes “[m]ay be Mr Dhankar should tell that to Mr Azim Premji whose for-profit business pays for his ideological battles”. I think Mr. Shah himself should communicate this gem of an argument to Mr. Premji. As far as I know, Mr. Premji understands the difference between business ventures which are legitimate places to make profit (like WIPRO) and education where he is not trying to make any profit at all (for example APF schools and the University).

There is one claim of his with which I am in complete agreement: “ideology trumps people”, certain kinds of ideologies don’t even allow people to read properly. And as far as my limited understanding goes, it is necessary to understand a position before one can fruitfully criticise it. some ideologies makes people forget this basic point.

*******

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

The MHRD letters to University of Hyderabad

April 20, 2016

Rohit Dhankar

The series of letters written by MHRD to the UoH is made out to be an incontrovertible evidence of “institutional murder” in the national press as well as in all debate on the unfortunate suicide of Rohith Vemula. Often just stating “the MHRD letters show it all” is considered the proof that the MHRD forced the UoH to “murder” Rohith Vemula. I wonder how many people have bothered to read these letters carefully and see for themselves what is written there in.

In this piece I am making an attempt to read and analyses these letters, and share what they communicate to me. My analysis and reading may be totally wrong and misplaced, and I will remain open to a different interpretation if advanced to me.

In total I have been able to collect 7 letters concerning this matter from various internet sources. All of them can be found here Rohith Vemula MHRD Letters to HCU. They begin with Mr. Nandanam Diwakar’s letter to Mr. Dattatreya and end with a letter written by an Under Secretary to MHRD to the Vice Chancellor of UoH. This list of letters I am referring to in this piece is as below:

  1. Nandanam Diwakar to Dattatreya, 10th August 2015
  2. Dattatreya to Smt. Irani, 17th August 2015
  3. (Email) Under Secretary to the Registrar, UoH, 3rd September 2015
  4. Deputy Secretary to the Registrar, 24th September 2015
  5. Deputy Secretary to the Registrar, 6th October 2015
  6. Joint Secretary to the Vice Chancellor, 20th October 2015, and
  7. Under Secretary to the VC, 19th November 2015.

The chain events leading to Rohith Vemula’s suicide as published in the Wire, on 19th January 2016, if believed, makes it clear that the first statutory committee looked into the matter before the first letter from MHRD came to UoH, and the Acting VC at that time was Professor R.P. Sharma. In the final report of the Proctorial Board it was recommended that “the five students who led the group to the ABVP student member’s room be suspended for six months on grounds of indiscipline”. Because of the protest of students against this recommendation the then Acting VC Prof. Sharma “decided to constitute another committee to look into the matter and for the time being revoked the suspension”. Prof. Apparao took charge as VC at the end of September 2015. It seems, though exact dates have to be looked into, that the decision of the Proctorial Board to suspend the students for 6 months came before the first email from the MHRD was sent to the UoH. And this decision was harsher than the final decision of suspension of students from the hostels but allowing to attend classes and use all other facilities of the university.

Now let’s come to the letters. The first letter from Mr. Nandadanam to Mr. Dattatreya, Minister of State, Government of India, is the longest and I think should be read carefully. The issue of supporting or opposing the BJP politics has to be suspended for some time when one analyses this letter. It expresses a view point in the Indian politics and understanding, without any endorsement or rejection, that view point is important, and has to be understood. Partly because in a democracy all voices have to be heard and partly because even if one wants to fight and defeat this view point, it can hardly be done without first understanding it.

This letter is written by a district level functionary of BJP to a Minister of State in the GoI belonging to BJP; therefore, the political intentions and use of power wielded by a MoS belonging to the ruling party cannot be denied. Therefore, let us note the political intentions as well as use of power to push those political intentions. Interestingly this letter is addressed to “Sri Bandaru Dattatreya garu” but actually begins by saying “Respected Madam”, that shows that the intention was to finally send it to some Madam, obviously, the Minister MHRD.

The letter claims that Mr. N Susheel Kumar () was abused, manhandles, tortured and hackled by ASA activist, by name only Dontha Prashant is mentioned. I read somewhere that Susheel Kumar is brother of the letter writer Diwakar; therefore, pushing political carrier of a brother by another brother should also be noted. The cause for this supposed to be attack is mentioned as a Facebook posting by Shusheel Kumar stating that “ASA goons are talking of hooliganism – feeling funny”. The letter also gives a list of various acts of disruption etc. by the ASA activists which includes disruption of a lecture by Amartya Sen and threatening students who criticise ASA politics. If thirty ASA students went to Susheel Kumar’s room to demand an apology and pressurised him to write an apology letter then the incident shows something. That is, the hooliganism remark is actually proved by this action (if the report is true); exactly as “intolerance” remarks by various people are proved by social media attacks on them.

There is an important paragraph in the letter which states the position of the letter writer regarding ASA politics in the campus: “We oppose ASA for not being pro-dalit and adivasi students association but for its methods and orientations that is nothing short of unwarranted aggression in the name of assertion and equality, contempt and hatred for all except them in the name of protecting particular social groups (threatening and intimidating dalits who subscribe to other political ideologies is one of their main political activity) and disintegrating the idea of unity in diversity that underwrites India as a nation-state in the name of narrow caste politics (paradoxically it is the identity politics of subaltern elites that they practice!) geared at pecuniary benefits rather than any tangible re-organisation and re-alignment of material conditions and mentalities.” The letter writer thus sees ASA politics as aggressive, against the idea of unity in diversity and casteist. And claims that he does not oppose ASA for being pro Dalit and Adivasi students. This looks like BJP’s political line. Anyone who questions BJP policies and opposes their representatives is promptly called “antinational” or “threatening” the idea of India, and doing caste politics. The letter writer, therefore, is reiterating his party line.

This is exactly like anyone questioning the left politics is immediately called reactionary and fascist. Any one questioning Dalit identity politics is called Manuwadi and casteist. Every political formation has its abusive labels; Diwakar is using his party’s abusive labels here.

The letter writer lists seven points as their prayer, explaining what they want from the authorities. They are worth reading and commenting in full.

  1. “Why is it made to perceive on campus that it is shameful to be Hindu and Indian in Indian Universities?” [Comment: this is BJP and RSS line about the atmosphere in the universities. I personally do not think it could be dismissed out of hand. In the last 50 years or so, due to (i) internal weaknesses of what is called Hinduism, (ii) distancing of intellectuals from Hinduism, as most of them do not admit in public that they are Hindus, (iii) criticising almost everything that is associated with Hinduism, and (iv) highlighting Hindu bigotry (rightly) but explaining or ignoring publicly expressed bigotry from other religious communities has led to a situation where many students coming from orthodox Hindu families which have no animosity to others feel that they are being derided just for being Hindus. However, it is just a question in the letter, which explains the writer’s worry. One may agree or disagree with this, but an Indian citizen does have the right to express this worry. However, the letter writer does not see the other side where Dalits students also feel shunned and minority students may have similar feelings. Our universities are getting increasingly divided.]
  2. “Why does university allow programs like prayer meeting for Yakub Memon?” [Comment: This explains the writer’s idea of limits of freedom of speech and expression. The letter elsewhere explains that this amounts to contempt of court as the Supreme Court upheld death sentence for Memon. This means that the Supreme Court’s decision should be respected, and cannot be criticised, BJP party line. Again, one may agree or disagree with this position, but many people do have this position and a citizen does have the right to complain about it.]
  3. “Why it is that students indulging in conducts unbecoming of students are not equally and proportionately punished?” [Comment: this looks like reporting a grievance emerging out of the perception that some students (by implication Dalits) are awarded punishments—if ever done—lighter than those awarded to non-Dalit students for similar acts. The perception may be right or wrong, but it could be expressed.]
  4. “Direct University of Hyderabad to enquire on all activities of ASA and other radical groups on campus.” [Comment: had this demand been for all student politics in the campus, one may have no objection to it. But it singles out only ASA and radical groups to be enquired into. One can understand this prayer (as he calls it) in the light of events he is complaining about, but it also expresses his mind-set of accepting the politics of ABVP, and considering it above suspicion; while desire to curb the politics of rival groups. Not fair, but one can demand.]
  5. “Formulate guidelines and policies to streamline what kind of program can be and cannot be conducted in Universities.” [Comment: I do not know how anyone can object to this? A fair demand, which if accepted would apply to all equally.]
  6. “Ensure ideas of nation, nationalism and nation building are propagated and spread in universities by the authorities at regular interval.” [Comment: it may sound very un-progressive to many intellectuals but all school curricula and many university vision and mission documents include these objectives. So how can one object to this?]
  7. “Set up committees to monitor activities of radical and anti-national students and faculties in University of Hyderabad.” [Comment: This is an accusation that the UoH does have antinational students and faculty. It also associates ‘radical’ groups with anti-national. This is an expression of BJP idea of universities, radicalism and nationalism. And is similar in character to number 4 above. One may disagree with this, but they have the right to express this as anyone else.]

One may strongly disagree with many conclusions and the politics behind this letter, it is also clear that it is to enhance ABVP politics in the campus. But it is also clear that these ideas and worries have to be engaged with, and people who want to take forward their own politics do write such letters. The letters of support written to JNU and UoH by many academics and intellectuals fall in the same category, though supporting opposite politics. One crucial difference is that this letter wants the state power to curb certain politics, while the support letters want the state power to freely allow that politics.

However, the claims of attack and physical harm to Mr. Susheel Kumar made in this letter are contested, and they actually may be false accusations in degree. This is coming from a position of power as BJP is ruling at the centre and partisan politics is certainly part of it.

The letter written by Mr. Dattatreya to Mrs. Irani forward the above mentioned letter and endorsed the accusations of both anti-national politics as well as attack on Susheel Kumar. He has written the letter on his official letter-head as a Minister of State, but makes the point that is writing as an elected representative from Secunderabad as well.

He claimed that the UoH “has, in the recent past, become a den of casteist, extremist and anti-national politics.” In support of this claim he cites “that when Yakub Menon was hanged, a dominant students union, that is, Ambedkar Students’ Association has held protests against the execution.”

At the end of the letter he says that “The purpose of my writing this letter is only to highlight the affairs in Hyderabad University. I earnestly hope under your dynamic leadership things would change in this Campus for the better.”

Now all this is known BJP political line on caste and nationalism. The issue is: can people who hold these ideas—even if they are wrong—express them and actively work to realise them? Their nationalism may be narrow and they may want the marginalised groups to protest without challenging the idea of nationalism as they define it; but should not the thinking people pay attention to these ideas as well? To understand their origin, to investigate how much water do they hold, and to address those origins. The second point is: even if prayed to curb a certain kind of politics in the campuses, should state act on it? Now we come to that.

The first email from the MHRD is from an Under Secretary to the Registrar of UoH, written on 3rd September 2015. It is very short so I will quote it in the full.

“Dear Sir,

Please find attached herewith a copy letter dated 17.08.2015 of Shri Bandaru Dattatreya, MoS for labout and Employment along with enclosures.

It is requested that issue raised by the Hon’ble MoS may kindly be examined and the facts may be intimated to the Ministry to enable us to submit reply to MoS.

With regards

Ramji Pandey

US” (Emphasis added)

It is worth noting that the email requests that the issue raised be examined and facts be intimated to the MHRD so that they can submit a reply to the MoS who raised this issue. It does not ask for any other action against any one. Just enquire and let us know.

I do not know what else a ministry can do if issues of such nature are raised about politics in a university? The MHRD is not asking to take any action, not asking if any action is taken, not naming any one; all it does is refers the matter to the responsible and competent authority to ascertain facts of the matter, so that a reply can be furnished.

All the subsequent letters of the ministry repeat the same request with reference to letters that have been sent before, and none of them mentions either students or suggests any action to be taken or demand that any other action than examining matter be taken.

What changes in the letters is the level of the officer writing as well as the authority they are addressed to. Some are written by Deputy Secretary, one is written by Join Secretary and some are written to the Registrar while some to the VC.

Another thing that changes is the subject line in some of them. It becomes “Antinational activities in Hyderabad Central University premises – Violent attack on Sri Nandanam Susheel Kumar, Ph.D. student and President of ABVP – reg.” This subject line is taken from the first letter written by Mr. Nandanam Dewakar to Mr. Dattatreya. But the request remains the same: examine, inform about the facts, so that a reply could be given to the MoS.

This is well known how the events turned. It is also clear that the first two letters (from Dewakar and Dattatreya) are (i) raising some concerns which are very important in their party line, (ii) want to help ABVP gain ground in the university, and (iii) oppose Dalit and radical students’ politics in the university. But they are politicians and as the ASA and left has their politics they have theirs. They want to push that politics by whatever means they have at their hands. At the least overtly the MHRD is keeping a very unbiased and fair line; all it does is wants to ascertain facts. What the MHRD would have done after the facts were ascertained is only a matter of guess work.

Now, I am not good in interpreting and reading ‘deeper mining’ in the texts. I stop where incontrovertibly drawn conclusions on the basis of reasonably certain premises stop. Looking for hidden meanings that require a host of unsustainable assumptions are unacceptable to me. Simply because there shall be no end to such interpretations; depending on what you want and how many unsustainable assumptions you can tolerate, one can prove anything through such methods. But I do not think that helps us understand the situation better. Therefore, I fail to understand what is wrong with these letters. If there are any other justifiable interpretations, I certainly would like to know.

*******

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

Questions for Gods that discriminate

April 19, 2016

Rohit Dhankar

  1. All gods, including those written with a capital G, are created by humans.
  2. Suppose a person has an identity X, that is X can be a Hindu or a Muslim or a Brahmin or a Jat or a Rajaput or an Ahir, or …..
  3. Suppose this person X (let’s call him Mr. X) is a narrow minded person who wants to discriminate against people of other identities, say identity Y. That is Y also could be a Hindu or a Muslim or a Brahmin or a Jat or a Rajaput or an Ahir, or …..
  4. Since Mr. X is narrow minded and wants to discriminate against all Ys; he can create a god Lord G that is discriminatory and discriminates against all Ys.
  5. Now suppose Lord G becomes famous in a 100 years or so.
  6. Now this famous Lord G does not want to allow any Y to see Him, and does not want to bless any Y, and does not want to allow any Y to worship Him.

The question One: what is logical for all Ys?

  1. To force Mr. X to refashion Lord G to be a non-discriminatory god? Or
  2. To say that Lord G is narrow minded and discriminatory imagination, therefore, I don’t want to worship him?
  • Should all Ys work to weaken the discriminatory Lord G or to strengthen Him by wanting to worship him?

Question two:

  1. Does the narrow minded Mr. X has a right to create a God he likes and worship Him the way he wants to?
  2. Do Ys have a right to force narrow minded Mr. X to change his concept of God?
  3. Would it curtail Mr. X’s liberty of faith and practice his faith?
  4. Can people create Gods which allow some to worship and do not allow others?
  5. Can people create clubs with controlled right to entry?
  6. If yes to (e) above why not yes to (d) as well?

*******

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

John Singh: Digantar’s founder president

April 16, 2016

Rohit Dhankar

I am writing this with a deeply felt loss that John Singh (Jitendra Pal Singh), our founder president is no more with us in his physical existence, he breathed his last on 13th April 2016 night. I hope we will be able to uphold his values, and be guided by his social concerns and practical wisdom.

John’s field of action, of course, was much larger than Digantar. As far as I understand Digantar was really a very small part of it. But I am neither closely acquainted with all his personal and social work nor am able to give a fuller account of his personality and social contribution. All I am trying here is expressing our indebtedness as an organization to our founder president.

I have not met anyone like John and Faith (John’s wife) who would value an educationists opinion enough to abandon search for a good school for their own children and will start one in which their children could study with the marginalized children from the locality where they lived. John and Faith could afford any school in India or actually in the world for their children. In spite of that when David Horsburgh suggested that in the same amount of money they will spend for education of their own two children, they can provide good education to 25 other children as well. They reposed faith not only in this idea of David but also in, first one and then two, young inexperienced teachers who were trained by David. And thus Digantar was born.

And this proved only to be a beginning. Digantar in its initial phases was more closely guided by Faith in the pedagogy and activities; but John’s vision of its place in human life and social concerns, in which Faith agreed with him, was also crucial in guiding Digantar’s growth. Their decision to put their own children in a school where all other children were from very poor families and much below their social and economic status, and never ever demanding any special treatment for them from two teachers who were rather fanatical regarding treating every child as equal is something rarely, if ever, seen in present-day Indian society.

John’s involvement with Digantar children in sports, taking them for picnic in his own jeep and engaging them in various activities is something that helped tremendously both the teachers and the children grow in understanding and practice of human values. I wonder how he suffered the antics of two dozen free spirited children, unpalatable food cooked by them on picnic, and ideologically rigid teachers.

Personally I feel indebted to John for my own growth as a human being and confidence in what I stand for. Running a school which is totally different from all others in that part of the world, needed confidence and commitment; which I personally was not equal to in those days, if John and Faith’s support would not have been there.

He and Faith supported the school for 10 years personally, with their own money; and when the Digantar Shiksha Evam Khelkud Samiti was founded he guided it for many years. When the school and organizational activities grew he constantly supported that growth, guided in managing that, and that completely without a trace of micromanagement; gave complete freedom to the teacher. I and Reena will always be grateful for his unflinching confidence in our abilities as well as our moral compass.

Being a bad manager and having a strong propensity to be carried away with pure beauty of rational ideas I often got Digantar in financial and organizational trouble. Now when I look back it seem to me I could do that because deep down in my heart I believed that there is a protector in John who would bail us out. And John always bailed us out, to substantial personal financial loss, as well as protecting from harsh criticism in the organizational meetings.

At one particularly difficult time we spent money sanctioned for another project to keep the schools alive. When the funder was informed they demanded the money back; which was absolutely fair. John simply looked at the accounts, convinced himself there was nothing personal or wrong ethically. Asked us the reasons why did we do that? When we explained the danger of discontinuing education of 500 children he immediately understood and took on himself to negotiate a re-payment schedule with the funder, and convincing the funder that the mistake is only technical; without any financial misappropriation. I believe the funders were convinced because of John’s personality and personal responsibility for Digantar. He also helped financially with large amount to continue the work and allowed us to meet the re-payment schedule agreed upon with the funder. When I remember this incident it’s his protective instinct for Digantar which comes to my mind first, all else is just a manifestation of that.

His balanced attitude in guiding the organizational matters and appreciation of the value of the work being done was almost instinctive for him; it seems to me that all else naturally flowed from his deep humanism. Digantar at this moment is going through a crisis and John again got into action as soon as he knew about a year back. The schools are now slowly moving towards safety, and all people in Digantar are helping in that. But John’s distinctive guidance, posing faith in inherent strength of the organization and confidence in Reena’s efforts when no glimmer of hope was visible is something only he could have done. Though the executive committee as a whole is behind the efforts to get past the present crisis, I personally still get a feeling that Digantar is orphaned in a very significant sense.

John’s pride in Digantar’s work was obvious. Whenever he came to know about some new venture and success, or heard good word from someone among his numerous contacts he always shared and encouraged us. A few times he mentioned hearing good things from people who did not know that John is the founder president of the organization they were talking about. He shared such anecdotes with us with a satisfaction which showed his attachment to Digantar.

John was deeply spiritual without being religious or dogmatic. I have no trace of spirituality in me; but wish that his faith in soul and its evolution is correct; and that his spirit will continue to protect and guide us.

We will miss you dearly John.

******

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

What should be the nature of campus politics?

April 9, 2016

Rohit Dhankar

One important, some would say the most important, aim of education is to be able to do right kind of politics, or to keep politics directed to greater common good. Therefore, separating political thinking and action from education, particularly higher education, would go against the educational purposes. If politics is accepted as part of education in this sense then one also has to think of its nature in the campuses. It could be seen as part of the overall campus environment and culture. The environment and culture in campuses, however, may have to conform to some criteria that are in alignment with the educational purposes. And that may have some implications for the politics in the campuses.

In order to investigate the issue let us start with the politics as it is played out in our country in general. Politics, as the oft repeated truism goes, is always to capture power. However every politician would claim that she/he or his/her party wants to capture power so that they can make people’s lives better; that they are not trying to capture power for any vainglorious reasons or for personal gains. They want to ‘serve the people’ as the adage goes. However, we also know that in their pursuit of power all parties and almost all politician use lies, twist truth, make false promises, deceive the public and their opponents, indulge in character assassination and personal attacks, create animosity between communities and often indulge in direct or indirect violence. In short, we can say that in the politics, as it is played out in India, the principles of truth and morality are conspicuous only by their absence.

The political parties and politicians indulge in untruth and immorality partly because they define their greater common good keeping in mind the vote-politics. For example, promising reservation for the caste X, may or may not be in the benefit of the society as a whole, it may even violate the basic principles of the constitution; but if it is likely to get votes then politicians will promise it, even when they know that they cannot fulfil the promise.

One can of course argue that when politicians are responding to the demand of caste X for reservation they are responding to aspirations of a section of population; and that is what democracy is all about. But public aspirations can be motivated by jealousy, selfishness, animosity to the others, and so on. They may be justified as per the constitution and morality, but may also be unjustified. When a politician looks only at the vote-catching potential of a policy and disregards legal and moral demands s/he is indulging in immoral politics.

Now the very idea of an educational institution like a university is based on setting time and place apart from the mundane routine of life. Here the students are not expected to either produce something nor are they expected to render any direct service to the society. The idea is that they are preparing themselves for producing goods and rendering services in future. By the time the students reach the university it is not the case that they cannot directly contribute to production and services; it is rather that they deepen their understanding and hone their skills to meet higher standards in whatever they produce and whatever services they render. Thus the idea of academic standards in knowledge and skills is the guiding factor in a university. Another aspect of education is directly related to the educatee’s own life: so that s/he can work out her own life goals and ways of achieving them. This, again, demands standards of knowledge and skill.

Contributing to the society as well as choosing one’s own life goals have a strong ethical dimension to it. They demand meeting some moral standards in one’s behaviour, actions and thinking. Educational campuses then demand certain standards of truth and morality. That raises the question of nature of politics in the campuses. Obviously, the nature of politics there in cannot be the same kind of politics which is done outside; simply because it violates the very principles of truth and morality; and university campuses are especially created to develop understanding of and commitment to these very principles.

This is not an argument to ban politics in the universities; neither is this an argument to tightly control and monitor university student politics. However, it certainly puts some responsibility on the university teachers and administration. One of these conditions is simply the quality of knowledge and pedagogical processes in the universities.

A university that fails in teaching standards of and commitment to truth is certainly not doing its job. It can fail in this venture in many ways: by providing partial information, by failing to teach rigour of reasoning, by failing to teach distinction between subjective emotional reaction and reasoned argument which can take others’ view point in account, and by indoctrination. It can also fail to create a commitment to truth: meaning commitment to seek evidence and argument for believing or disbelieving something. Or it can fail to develop moral commitment to truth: that what is true is true, even if it is inconvenient or even against my purposes.

The second part of the university teaching has to be the flourishing of people, well-being of all in the society to which a student is likely to contribute as well from which s/he is likely to draw her/his own purposes, joys, energy and fulfilment of life.

All this suggests that the campus politics has to set higher standards of fidelity to truth, to moral standards and to democratic norms. It has to be a politics of principles and not that of power. Otherwise it contributes nothing to the political scenario of the country and becomes simply a ploy for indoctrination into various hardened positions. Indoctrination is completely antithetical to academic standards.

We should realize that indoctrination is not a simple acceptance of a view on something, not a simple acceptance of a belief. It means installing a belief in one’s mind at such a deep level and with such complete blindness that one becomes incapable of examining the truth of that belief. It becomes an article of faith; it becomes a yardstick to measure other beliefs. An indoctrinated mind is necessarily a closed mind, and an indoctrinated person is nothing but a tool in the hands of those who indoctrinate him/her.

Recently an activist friend quoted another famous activist saying that ‘whenever there is complaint of sexual harassment I (the famous activist) can take only one stand: that the woman is right. Period.’ Now we all know that sexual harassment by men is rampant and women are most often the victims. But this refusal to check facts and being guided by the fixed principle that in such cases ‘woman is always right’ is indoctrination; it blinds the person completely. This person cannot entertain questions and cannot serve the truth. This is elevating a personal bias to the level of a religious dogma. This kind of dogmas can be of many hues and about many groups of population. A dalit or a higher caste person can be ‘always right’. A Hindu or a Muslim can be ‘always right’. A rich or a poor can be ‘always right’. Such dogmas give a lot of psychological solace to their believers, the decision for them becomes much easier and almost mechanical. Questioning them becomes psychologically disturbing. But they also make the world black-and-white, and the believer a mindless bigot.

In such a situation there can be no place for questions and demanding facts and justifications. Anyone who demands facts and sound arguments is name-called and derided. In general this is the politics RSS-group has been doing for long. The terms like “sicular”, “prestitute”, “AAPtard”, etc are product of this kind of mindless attack. The campus politics now is well advanced on this path. Watch the questions Kanhaiya asks of Makarand Paranjape after his lecture. None of his 5 questions has anything to do with the lecture. They all are about ‘what is your party?’ and whether ‘you condemn this or that?’. This is the student mind that the present day campus politics produces.

Ask JNU teachers and students (only those who are visible in in this supposed to be fight for democracy) whether there is a difference between ‘slogan shouting’ and ‘discussion’ on an issue? Ask them to substantiate the claim made by one of them that India illegally occupies Kashmir. Ask them to clarify whether they reject the Indian state? And if they do, what attitude Indian state should take towards them? All you will get is a tag of being with the ‘right wing’. No clarity, no answers.

Ask the Hyderabad protesters what does ‘institutional murder’ mean? Ask them to justify their claim that Hyderabad University wilfully murdered Rohith Vemula. Ask them whether it is justified to demand resignation of a VC solely on the basis of the charges you stick on him, without any enquiry? Ask them to explain the crossed text and other lines in Rohith Vemula’s suicide note; and all you will get is BJP did this or that, or you are an anti-dalit.

In these two cases the students are playing in the hands of a certain kind of politics. Then comes NIT Srinagar. There seems to be a deliberately created situation which pitches non-Kashmiri students against the Kashmiri students. Giving the signal that ‘if you can create a mountain out of a mole hill in JNU, we can do the same in NIT Srinagar’. If you can indoctrinate some students in ‘leftist’ politics we can indoctrinate some others in the ‘rightist’ politics. The casualty in the both cases are truth and ethics. We see the attack on the universities in terms of capturing them from outside, but we ignore the rot that is being set in them from inside. The rot which is the enemy of all that a university should stand for: rigorous commitment to truth and ethics, fair thinking, taking all facts into account and keeping our biases under check.

Biased and theoretically blinded teachers and students are a much bigger danger to the universities than anything else. International support created on the basis of personal connections cultivated over years does not necessarily serve the truth. Even Chomskys can be misled by their trusted colleagues.

******

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

A bigoted fight with unfair means

April 7, 2016

Rohit Dhankar

(1)

“There are three elements necessary to correct reasoning, first, the correctness of the facts or conclusions I start from, secondly, the completeness as well as accuracy of the data I start from, thirdly, the elimination of other possible or impossible conclusions from the same facts. The fallibility of the logical reason is due partly to avoidable negligence and looseness in securing these conditions, partly to the difficulty of getting all the facts correct, still more to the difficulty of getting all the facts complete, most of all, to the extreme difficulty of eliminating all possible conclusions except the one which happens to be right.”[1]

This is Aurobindo’s diagnosis of untenable conclusions. These untenable conclusions lead to unwarranted public posturing and action. We can add a fourth source of problem in correct reasoning which Aurobindo mentions in the same article, he says, “the mind must have some development of the faculty of dealing with words before it can deal successfully with ideas.” If we leave out the chronological part, that of order of acquiring facility in words and ideas, the claim that “words” (read language) plays the most fundamental part in reasoning can hardly be doubted.

Therefore, the education that wants to help people develop into independent minded citizens, so essential for a democracy, has to teach them to be respectful to: 1. Accuracy and clarity of language, 2. Correctness of facts, 3. Completeness of data (facts), 4. Logical correctness of conclusions, and 5. Elimination of other possible conclusions.

(2)

If one goes by Dewey all social groups want to continue their existence. In brief this continuation is in terms of shared meaning of experience and interaction of mutual interests. The conservative societies maintained this shared meaning of experience through the force of custom reinforced by some custodian class. But “social groups which are intentionally progressive, and which aim at a greater variety of mutually shared interests in distinction from those which aim simply at the preservation of established customs. Such societies were found to be democratic in quality, because of the greater freedom allowed the constituent members, and the conscious need of securing in individuals a consciously socialized interest, instead of trusting mainly to the force of customs operating under the control of superior class.”[2]

A democratic society, therefore, is vulnerable to fragmentation of meaning of experience if the mutual interests of its members do not interact on a fair and sympathetic manner. Indian society has been trying to format itself on the democratic lines in terms of creating shared meaning of experience and fair interaction of mutual interests for last at least 125 years. We have achieved a measure of success in this direction but we have also very disturbing and significant failures.

When the shared meaning gets fragmented in a society one has to go a level up in developing a social philosophy which accommodates all competing interests and recreates the shared meaning and shared commitment in all its members.

(3)

This is where the Aurobindo quote in the beginning of this article comes into play. The people engaged in highlighting the fragmented meaning of experience and unfair emphasis on interests of the some may take a position where their aim seems to be only pointing out the fragmentation and consequent injustice. Or, alternatively, they can take a position where highlighting the injustice and inequality is part of the project where the ultimate aims is to arrive at a more shared meaning, greater possibility of justice and equality. When one emphasises only the earlier one is aiding in making the problem more intractable; and finally pushing towards a breakdown of the social and political order. When one is also considering the latter without diluting the first one is striving to achieve a more just and equitable order. The so-called left intellectual at the moment are engaged in the first.

The other side of the coin is represented by the BJP-forces. They want to preserve the order through imposed traditional meaning, completely ignoring the fragmented meaning of the very symbols they want to use for this; Ex. Bharat Mata and cow. Their ideal is not freedom to each individual to create his/her own meaning which also aligns with the creation of shared interests taking into account all perceptions and aspirations. Their project seems to be to bulldoze everyone into an imagination of society and state which they have formed, based on particularly unpalatable aspects of a single culture.

Both are intent on their own little victories. In this process they are distorting the meaning of words (Exs. nationalism, patriotism, institutional murder, etc.). Both parties are suppressing, distorting, and manufacturing ‘facts’ (see the media reposts); jeopardising completeness and veracity of the facts. Both are using untenable logical inferences and indulging in fallacies. Both are picking up the kind of conclusions that suit their purposes and without properly eliminating the other possible conclusions. Thus, failing on all the criteria of sound reasoning listed by Aurobindo.

As result, the language has become ambiguous; the reliability of information providing systems (media) has plunged very low. The people are becoming more and more unsure of their own minds and are depending on chosen leaders for opinion.

This is very beneficial for both the warring formations. As the success of their purposes depends not on factually informed, capable in proper reasoning and fair minded public. It rather depends on feeding distorted information, blurred reasoning, and indoctrinated public. The numerous left formations of students and ABVP both are very good prototypes of uninformed, very zealous, indoctrinated brigades ready to attack whomsoever their masters command. In the process a whole generation of bigoted (be that to the right or to the left) population in capable of reasoned judgment.

In this little piece I have stated only the general argument and have not given expels to instantiate each conclusion in the chain. Partly because of lack of time and partly because examples are plenty in the media and will come to the minds of the readers automatically.

*******

[1] Aurobindo, A system of national education (page 408) in Complete Works of Sri Aurobindo, Vol 1, (2003),

Sri Aurobindo Ashram Publication Department, Pondicherry

[2] Dewey, (1916, 1948 reprint), Democracy and Education, pages 375-6, The Macmillan Company, New York.

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

Just imbecility or malice all around

April 2, 2016

Rohit Dhankar

First some unidentified people in JNU raised slogans threatening to break India. Some identified students among them chipped in, with less threatening but still bad enough, threats to continue war on India. They, in their revolutionary wisdom, think that rejecting the Indian state and waging war on the nation will ensure justice with Kashmiri people. One wonders what is more important for them: justice or malice towards India.

Then the head of a supposed to be ‘Hindu Rakshak’ organization (Bhagwat) tells the nation that time has come when our students should be taught to chant “Bharat Mata ki jai” rather than issuing threats to break India and/or wage war on it. The supremo of the august body thinks teaching of shouting slogans is a matter of indoctrination which could be done this way or that. His understanding of nation and citizens in it takes him only thus far. He seem to think that it is a matter of ritual rather than concerns and commitment.

This wise advice to the country irks a chief of a religious fiefdom (Owaisi) calling itself a political party; which has its roots in the communal Razakar militia. The chief interprets the self-appointed Hindu-rakshak’s advice as a compulsion and strikes a defiant pose proclaiming that he will not chant “Bharat mata ki jai” even under the threat of cutting his throat. He makes it as if the self-appointed Hindu-Rakshak (Bhagwat) actually issues such a threat. The defiant pose of the fiefdom chief raises a nationwide controversy. And every one either starts criticizing him or defending him; some start threatening him and asking his to go to Pakistan.

Stroking the fire further a lawmaker in a state assembly asks another lawmaker to chant “Bharat Mata ki jai” out of blue; without rhyme and reason. The matter under discussion had nothing to do with Bharat mata, and the point the lawmaker was making was actually a good one: why waste money of statues rather than using it for public good? Not to be outdone the other lawmaker firmly refused to chant Bharat mata slogan. That made all the lawmakers in that assembly forget their solemn oath of protecting the constitution and they all unite to suspend the recalcitrant lawmaker; and simultaneously giving a blow to the constitution. It seems chanting Bharat Mata slogan is the crux of running the nation, while the constitution is only an inconvenience.

Meanwhile the party in power at the center (BJP) loses all sense of its responsibility and passes a resolution in its executive to the effect that criticism of the nation and not chanting “Bharat mata …” will not be tolerated. Well, the constitution allows criticism of the nation and does not demand chanting of any mata’s jai; but who cares about the constitution any more. Nor does it specify what will it do if someone criticizes the nation and does not chat the desired “jai”? This totally illogical and malicious resolution can be defended by no argument. But its minions at the ground level take the hint and start beating those who refuse to chant the desired slogan. Perhaps that was the only purpose of that resolution: to unleash violent mobs on the citizens who do not agree with them and scare them.

How can the most respected religious seminary (Deoband) lose the opportunity to jump in the frey? So it jumps right in with its illogical fatwa. It proclaims that chanting “Bharat mata ki jai” is not acceptable in Islam as a Muslim can worship only the Allal. As we all know Allah is extremely jealous of his unique position and accepts nothing else as worshipable. But the seminary sees no problem shouting “Hinduatan jindabad” and calling India “mathare watan”. They forget that ‘vandana’ may be interpreted as worship but ‘jai’ is not worship at all. It only wishes victory. Terefore, chanting “Bharat Mata ki jai” is not at all worship; it simply means ‘hail Bharat Mata’ or ‘victory to Bharat mata’. Not chanting a slogan and declaring it against Islam is not the same thing. You can refuse to chant it, that is your right. But what it is no act of worship. How different is the idea of ‘mathare-vatan’ than ‘rashtra-mata’? If not much it is a matter of the name only. But who cares about such niceties. You have to offer your own hard illogical stand against the others idiotic and hard illogical stand. As if they are in competition with each other to bag the title of ‘most senseless and illogical pronouncements’.

One wonders, what next? Are all these people (from the sloganeers, to Bhagwat, to Owaisi to Maharasthra MLAs to Deoband, and their supporters) simply confused or interested in spreading malice? Do they actually have any convictions at all, or interested in one up manship only? Where will this cycle of stupidity stop? Who is the target of all this illogical malice? Who but the common Indian citizen?

******

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

JNU issue again: A response to a friend

March 27, 2016

Rohit Dhankar

[It seems people have lost interest in the JNU debate, and have moved on. But a friend commented on one of my blogs on this issue. This is a response to that comment. You may find it repetitive, old issue and uninteresting.]

Thanks Anjali, for reading and commenting on my blog post “Welcoming Umar Khalid”.

I have written many blogs on this issue and have answered all these questions in them. Some of these blogs are:

1.   Common Indian: between the devil and the deep sea

2.   Spreading confusion through JNU issue

3.   The point and the counter point: JNU slogans

  1. Kashmir: Illegal occupation by India?

5.   Indoctrination in JNU?

6.   Freedom of speech and slogan shouting: A rejoinder to Professor Partha Chatterjee

All are available on the same site in the months of February and March. However, rather than referring you to this material I am responding briefly to the issues you have raised in your comment.

You have raised several questions, some of them are numbered separately some are not, so the numbering below does not match exactly with numbering in your comment.

  1. Glossed over facts: according to you Umar says that they (JNU) stopped Indira Gandhi but protested against others, and they had the right to protest. My question is why protest freedom of speech? Protest the content if you like, through your own statements. How can one champion as well as protest against the same thing? If their protest was right why are they so angry about others protesting their kind of freedom of speech? My point remains valid with taking pride in one instance of ‘stopping’ and several others protested by disruption and hackling. What I am saying is that JNU (Umar Khalid included) brand of freedom of speech is ‘freedom of speech when I use it’ and ‘victimisation and canard when others use it against me’. This is double standard.
  2. He did not shout Kashmir ki azadi tak jang rahegi: I have videos where he is seen shouting many slogans, and ‘jang rahegi’ comes without disruption in the flow and in the same voice. The JNU lobby says that 2 of 7 videos are doctored; but no one ever told which two and what portions in them are doctored. This is deliberate obfuscation. He shouted this slogan.
  3. What is the problem in saying kitne Afzal maroge?: you have raised several issues to support this line of argument.

(a) Yes, many people says that Afzal trial had problems. But the problems they cite are connected with Afzal not getting a good defence in the trial court. I have not heard/read any of the lawyers etc. who says that he was not involved. If you have any argument of this nature please enlighten me.

(b) “The judgement itself said that there was no incontrovertible proof” you claim: I have read the judgment, and would like to know where it says that? What the judgment says is: “Short of participating in the actual attack, he did everything to set in motion the diabolic mission. As is the case with most of the conspiracies, there is and could be no direct evidence of the agreement amounting to criminal conspiracy. However, the circumstances cumulatively considered and weighed, could unerringly point to the collaboration of the accused Afzal with the slain ‘Fidayeen’ terrorists. The circumstances, if considered together, as it ought to be, establish beyond reasonable doubt that Afzal was a party to the conspiracy and had played an active part in various acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy. These circumstances cannot be viewed in isolation and by no standards of common sense, be regarded as innocuous acts.” You may agree or disagree with the Supreme Court’s view, but can hardly make it say what you want.

(c) The “hanging was given as a punishment to assuage the collective consciousness”: This is a canard spread against the Supreme Court for many years now, and gullible Indians are swallowing it. The judgment writes on page 77: “The net result of the above discussion is that the conspiracy to commit terrorist acts attracts punishment under sub-Section (3) of Section 3. The accused Afzal who is found to be a party to the conspiracy is therefore liable to be punished under that provision. Having regard to the nature, potential and magnitude of the conspiracy with all the attendant consequences and the disastrous events that followed, the maximum sentence of life imprisonment is the appropriate punishment to be given to Mohd. Afzal under Section 3(3) of POTA for conspiring to commit the terrorist act. Accordingly, we convict and sentence him.” This conviction comes under Section 3(3) of POTA. In the lengthy discussion, and before this there is no mention of “collective conscience”.

Then the court goes on to consider Sections 3(2) and 3(5) of POTA, sets aside the conviction under them.  Then it goes on to consider Section 120(B) read with section 302 of IPC. And the mention of “collective conscience” occurs in this discussion when the gravity of the crime and rarest of rare nature of the crime is under consideration.

Thinking people who consider themselves the custodians and guardians of the truth and justice in the country should read the judgment carefully and should not take their comrades and politicians pronouncements at their face value.

(d) “[S]o if there is a slogan with the purpose that if injustice is done more and more people will rise against it, what is wrong with it?”: Afzal’s involvement in terrorist acts and the parliament attack conspiracy is not doubted, not even by his supporters. Whether he got good defence at the trial court is doubted. Whether capital punishment could be given on the basis of circumstantial evidence is debated. Challenging the nation by a pledge (slogan shouted in public is a pledge, not a discussion) to create more and more terrorists because of these doubts and debates is not justified to my mind. Making a martyr out of him on this basis is not justified. I might be wrong. I am not advocating any punishment for such acts, I am advocating only condemnation from thinking people and asking for clarification from the sloganeers. Please allow me at the least that much. If you want to support these acts this is your choice, go ahead.

  1. “It is now clear that the Bharat ki Barbadi slogans were morphed onto the original videos”: No, this is a wrong statement. I have videos that clearly show people shouting these slogans. Umar Khalid and co. are not shouting these slogans, but slogans were shouted. And Umar Khalid is on record says that the “only problem” he has with these slogans is that the ‘population of India’ with which they want to interact gets agitated by these. Other than that he has no problem; he does not say this last phrase, but it is very clear from the context. And his explanation (I did not know of this before writing the blog you are commenting on) is not satisfactory.
  2. My reminding of security forces dying “is quite similar to the Sangh propaganda”: I am not a card carrying party person; therefore, have the freedom to accept or deny various ideas based on my own reason. Some thing said by Sangh parivar does not become anathema to me if stands reason independently. And I don’t care about name calling at all. It seems to me that upholding the territorial integrity of the country is important for its secularism, democracy and caring for justice to all. If you let it go, all this will collapse. The security personal are dying in this process; they are rendering a useful service to the country. And deserve sympathy from all who enjoy the fruits of this security; in spite of this being their ‘naukari’ and they being paid for it.

That however does not justify the excesses committed by the security forces, and such excesses should be investigated and punished. Umar Khalid in one of a video mentions that “three Kashmiri youths are killed”. This is a reference to the terrorists who were holed up in Pampore. His sympathies are with the three terrorists and not with the security forces in that incident.

Yes, we need to study Kashmir; but not after 90s as you say. Rather after Shekh Abdulla started the people’s self-determination movement before freedom. And if you study carefully you will find that the Indian state in spite of having committed mistakes is justified in keeping Kashmir as an integral part of itself and fighting the terrorism. I cannot go into details of this; but you can read part of it in one of my blogs titled “Kashmir: Illegal occupation by India?”. Khalid thinks, he is on record saying this, that it is illegal occupation by India at par with Pakistan; he is wrong in this; misguided by his professors who mistakenly take the same line disregarding or being ignorant of facts.

  1. “Bogey of border nationalism”: I do not know what you mean by it. I have argued in one of the blogs that territorial integrity is a necessity at this moment from constitutional, moral, and pragmatic reasons. Humans have not evolved to keep themselves organised and maintain social life without some organisational principle which necessarily involves regional arrangements; and therefore, territorial integrity. May be some have evolved; but they have to wait till the majority reaches their level of evolution.
  2. Azadi slogans were for azadi from casteism, poverty, etc.: There were two groups even in the JNU-lobby-supported larger group. There was a more than 2 minute chant where the azadi was azadi for Kashmir and “banduk ke dam par”. Other group was chanting what you say, azadi from poverty, sanghvad, for women, etc. This again an obfuscation to deceive the public.
  3. “All these students have sworn by the constitution”: I am not sure whom do you include in all these students. It is good if they have realised it and sworn by the constitution. Umar Khalid, on whom this blog was written, is on record saying that Kashmir’s occupation by India is at par with Pakistan. This is not constitution. More importantly, in one of the videos he addresses his comrades and clearly rejects the Indian state (not present day government, the state), says he does not believe in any nationality, including Indian. And wants to communicate directly to the ‘Indian population’, disregarding the state. This is a different matter that later on he seeks protection from the same rejected state against a section of that very same Indian population he wants to directly communicate with. That only shows duplicity in propounding such theories.

To my mind the original issue was shouting objectionable slogans. Whether that attracted sedition or not is not my point. But many of those slogans attract some legal action and many more condemnation from thinking Indian citizens. The JNU-lobby turned the issue into a freedom of speech issue, and obfuscated on the slogans shouting versus debate on issues. In the process they twisted and fabricated truth just like the BJP and its cohorts. There was no substantial difference as far as regard for truth and reason goes; both used lies, fabrications and disregard for logic. No democracy can survive and progress if the public thinking and reason is deliberately obscured; whether your immediate purpose be justified or unjustified. The nation pays for dimmed rational capability of the people. JNU-lobby at this moment is attacking the public capability of clear thinking with more force than the BJP-RSS lobby. Simply because the JNU-lobby is still thought to be better at thinking through and fairer on the issues of justice and equality. But they have not acted responsibly and have damaged the democracy.

******

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

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »