Between the devil and the deep sea: what a choice?

April 16, 2014

Rohit Dhankar

Few days back I was in my village in rural Rajasthan. Four youngsters of our family and one cousin gheraod me and pelted me with questions regarding whom to vote for. The youngsters were highly educated—a engineer, working as assistant Bank Manager, a dentist waiting to setup practice, an MBA struggling businessman – and all supporters of Modi. The 40+ years old cousin working in the gulf is also a Modi supporter. I could not convince them that Modi is a bad omen for the country, mainly because I could not provide them with an alternative.

I said that I will vote for no one, which seriously damaged my reputation among them as having a strong commitment to democracy. They charged me with not being a responsible citizen of democratic India.

This set me thinking. I don’t understand development and economics very well. So my considerations turned to wellbeing of India as a democracy. In a very quick analysis I decided to think over ‘in my mind’ about BJP, Congress and AAP on the basis of three cardinal values of democracy in India: equality, secularism and freedom. I did not consider justice because it seems to me that consideration of justice will refer back to equality and in a short piece I can afford to limit myself to equality. I also ignored ‘fraternity’ or concern for others’ wellbeing because it will make me repeat what I say on secularism and equality. This being tentative thinking I can afford to temporarily leave it out.

The following is the result of my tentative personal thinking. May not be very rigorous and all encompassing, it is more at the level of musings.

BJP UNDER NARENDRA MODI

I am taking BJP under Narendra Modi first because all serves predict them to be the single biggest party.

Their history

Torch bearers of Janasangha and Hindu Mahasabha, and guided (controlled, some say) by RSS. This trio certainly is divisive and wants Hindus to dominate Indian politics, and every aspect of national life. They are particularly inimical to Muslims. They have been giving calls of “Bharateeya karan” and then in the name of opposing appeasement been attacking Muslims. Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajarang Dal are certainly fundamentalist organisations and creations of the RSS.

Equality of status and opportunity

The whole Sangha Parivar wants India to run on Hindu ethos and want others to accept their secondary status as far as ‘foundational’, ‘cultural’ ethos of India go. However, as citizens they are ambivalent and willy-nilly accept equal status and rights for all.

But their ‘equality’ has several problems. They are against all affirmative action that goes in favour of status quo where higher caste Hindus dominate the scene. They are not really concerned about righting the historical wrong visited on Dalits for centuries. Deep down they seem to be governed by caste stereotypes and want everyone to accept the supremacy of brahminical values where kshatriyas have a status equal to Brahmins but the rest have to be ‘sankritised’.

Women are not ‘equal’ in their equality; they need to be safeguarded, guided, controlled, if need be by force. They may not say all this in words, but they certainly show it in their deeds. The Bharatiya Nari still seems to be their preferred ideal, though they do not say that openly and often.

I personally do not think they really want to dominate Muslims in stark terms. But they want to Hinduise their ethos, they want them to have their punyabhoomi in India, which is historically impossible. They suspect Muslims’ loyalty to the country; and are actually scared of them. They have deep down animosity for Muslims, and often blame what they call eight hundred years of “Muslim rule” for many of the ills in Hinduism.

Secularism

No they are not secular by any stretch of imagination. Secularism has to do with the attitude of the state to religions. The BJP and Sangha Parivar certainly wants Hindu ethos to dominate every sphere of life. So they cannot be secular in the ‘equal distance from all religions’ sense of the term. Their manifesto proves that without a shred of doubt. Ram mandir, Ram Setu, Ganga as spiritual lifeline, and cow as a holy animal nail it.

I have mentioned their attitude to Islam and Muslims above and that certainly is not secular. Their imagination of India is an upper caste Hindu imagination.

Freedom of speech and expression

They are departing from Hindu ethos in this respect. It seems to me that the Hindus traditionally have been tolerant to expression of ideas they did not agree with. But only tolerant. Hindus – upper caste – have never considered others as good as themselves; the other often was ‘mlachchhya’. But speaking against orthodoxy from within as well as from without was tolerated. This perhaps came from the idea that ‘the truth is one but wise-ones express it in many ways’. BJP and Sangha are now becoming more and more intolerant to that. One cannot any longer speak against their dharma, gods and even leaders. Actually, in this respect they are eroding traditional Hindu ethos.

Therefore, BJP under Modi certainly does not fare well in the light of values like equality, secularism and freedom of expression; and one cannot vote for them.

INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS UNDER NEHRU-GANDHI FAMILY

As BJP has declared itself under Modi, Congress has been an unambiguous fiefdom of the Nehru-Gandhi family. So one has to consider it that way.

Their history

The Congress of today is a continuation in some ways and is very different in some others from the Congress that fought and won the freedom struggle for India. But since 1920 congress has been under dictatorship of people at the helm. Its ethos was not of open discussion and democratic decision making. Gandhi completely destroyed that and then handed it over to Nehru. Nehru had an historic opportunity to work for dismantling the feudal and totalitarian character of the party. He did build institutions and infuse democratic decision making in the nation, but was always very careful about his own power and did not believe that others can be as good democrats as he considered himself. The Congress remained a dictatorship under him. After Nehru and a brief struggle of power it completely went into Indira Gandhi’s hands; who destroyed all democratic institutions and became a virtual dictator. Since then it is nothing more than a family fiefdom populated by power hungry, dishonest sycophants.

Equality of status and opportunity

Certainly not. The Gandhis are ‘more equal than others’. Even a nincompoop born in Gandhi family is considered as natural leader by all spineless Congressis. This is the height of hypocrisy when congress leaders like Rahul and Sonia Gandhi talk of power sharing and not being concentrated in a few hands. One wonders how they can make such proclamations! The only explanation seems to be that they think people are really stupid. Congress is a feudal party with mindless loyalty (Manmohan Singh being the paragon) as its strength. They seem to genuinely believe that the Gandhi family has some sort of divine right. This dynastic politics has a good understanding of mentality of Indian masses, who are actually feudal in thinking.

Congress is the reason why we have so many political dynasties today. They showed the way, and made it acceptable under a democratic constitution. Their ‘equality’ is very nuanced. Gandhis are the ‘most equal’, and that cannot be questioned; as we know even Priyanka Gandhi is a more important leader than their biggest political stalwarts. Other political dynasties (be they Sindhias, Yadava, or what ever) are ‘more equal’ than the commoners without a dynasty to flaunt. The commoners are ‘equal’ among themselves of course; but: one, they all are to be ‘ruled’, and two, their respective value (equality?) depends upon how they can be used at any given time for consolidating the power for Gandhis. Gandhis are the masters, rest are the subjects.

Their proclamations for benefit of dalits, Muslims and tribals are directed at keeping the flock together, and not for any love for equality.

I am surprised that people fail to notice that Modi as the mascot of BJP is modelled on the Congress. Congress does not proclaim a Prime Ministerial candidate, its Prime Ministerial candidate has always been known to all, since Nehru era. When was there any doubt that a scion of Nehru-Gandhi family, chosen by the family itself, will be the prime minister? They did not need to declare it. BJP learnt that this clarity gives dividends, so they adopted it from Congress. The BJP could not perform the trick of ‘declaring without declaring’; so they had to openly declare.

Secularism

They do not seem to have any overt animosity to any particular religious group. But their politics is far from being secular, it always has been sectarian and casteist. They are the most adept at playing religious communities against each other. Actually, to my mind, if the congress did not play the politics of religion, BJP would have been a dismal failure. Congress policies and hypocrisy have nurtured the BJP and Sangh parivar. Congress has been historically adept at using religion for political gains. Gandhi’s use of Muslim sentiment against abolition of Caliphate is the biggest example of non-secular religious politics. And it came from a man who preached sanctity of means nd ends both! In the Khilafat movement both Hindus and Muslims were cheated. The failure of Khilafat movement in its proclaimed objectives (swarajya and reinstating the Caliphate) created a backlash. The Muslims saw Gandhi’s (the original one) withdrawal of the movement as a betrayal, not only by Gandhi himself but by Hindus in large. The RSS came into being in the aftermath of this failure.

Congress’s stand on Shah Bano case, opening the doors of Babri Masjid, and numerous other issues can hardly be called secular, they are example of sectarian politics. They were designed to appease one community at one time and another at another time, and, therefore, playing communities against each other. This certainly is not secularism.

People fail to notice that today Congress is talking of communal and divisive language more than BJP, though to proclaim that they are the guardians of unity and minorities. The real point in their talk is creating distrust and fear. BJP is talking development. Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and all of Congress is talking actually communalism, and its fear. BJP can afford not to talk of Hindutva for a while, because it has established its credentials of Hindu communalism where it matters, among middle class Hindu population, they need not always talk about it. Now they can afford to talk development. This has forced Congress to come in the open.

Freedom of speech and expression

Congress has never came out as a protector of citizens’ right to free speech. India was the first country to ban Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, their record of protecting Taslima Nasreen has been dismal. In the case of Danish cartoons of Muhammad was even worse. They are also very touchy about the Gandhi family, no adverse comment on any family member is tolerated.

Therefore, as far as the issue of these three values go, one cannot vote for Congress either.

AAM AADMI PARTY UNDER KEJRIWAL

Kejriwal is the undisputed leader, nay icon, of AAP.

Well, they have been in the arena for a very short time. One does not really have enough information on their position on equality, secularism and freedom of speech. They seem to be similar to the Congress on secularism, if one goes by Kejriwal’s overtures to Muslim clerics. But their position on equality and freedom of speech is not clear.

They, however, seem to have other problems that are even more scary than the BJP and Congress. In a multicultural democracy procedural norms are absolutely essential to function properly. Ideas on justice, equality, freedom of speech, moral values, behaviour with others, boundaries of legal action, etc. all are understood in multiple ways. Many of these concepts are essentially contested; meaning that their interpretations will always remain open and a clear single accepted definition will never be available. In such a scenario, if you want to live together with harmony setting procedural norms for public behaviour is the only way. Yes, procedural norms can be manipulated, can be unjust, principles can be adhered to ‘in letter’ and be ‘violated in spirit’. And in such situations one needs to oppose the people who are violating the principles. But even that has to be done within the procedural norms. AAP in general and Kejriwal in particular does not accept that.

So what do they want to replace procedural norms with? Their own self-righteousness. They have to be accepted as just, true and absolutely reliable messiahs. This is not democracy. They are actually a ‘CULT’ with Kejriwal the originator and head.

In reality Kejriwal—in spite of his aam aadmi penchant—is behaving like a very ‘khaas aadmi’. Whatever he says is right, he does not need arguments, evidence or any other justification. His word is enough. That makes him a bold and honest person in eyes of many. But he turns out to be a joker and a self-centred egoist in many others’ eyes. I belong to the second group. I don’t consider him bold at all. Boldness involves risk taking. He has nothing to lose, so no risk.

People like Yogendra yadav and Medha Patkar have a huge reputation as upholders of democratic rights and thinking people. But they have already started looking like jokers in that AAP cap.

One can hardly contemplate voting for AAP then.

SO WHAT DOES ONE DO THEN?

I have heard (have not read) that there will be an option of “None Of The Above” (NOTA) in the voting machines. I will go for that. It seems to me, tentatively, that if a large number of people vote for NOTA, then the message will be conveyed to all that the public is not stupid, they are thinking and something in the minds of ordinary silent Indians is brewing. This might get an expression in the coming years. Till then we have to keep our fingers crossed for the country and live with bated breath.

ONE MORE THING

Congress is making a lot of noise that Modi will turn the country into a fascist one. Many Indian intellectuals are making the same point. This exaggerated paranoia is helping Modi. It cannot happen in India, at least I believe that. It cannot happen not because Indians are any more democratic people etc. or for the want of BJP and Modi. But because of the range of diversity and acceptance of multiplicity of values in India. The Gandhi family on the helms could not turn India into a monarchy, Modi cannot turn it into a fascist one. One is crediting them with too much of power when claims that the country can be turned into a fascist Hindu rashtra or a monarchy. There are several reasons to believe that it will not happen, but I cannot go into them here. Let us remember that unbelievable exaggeration obscures the genuine problems, and arguments become unacceptable. We will do much better if we keep arguments in a sane intellectual space. Then they will influence people’s thinking; fantastic claims fell on deaf years.

Modi coming to power will harm India. It will further damage equality, secularism and freedom; but he will not be able to destroy them. Congress coming to power will also further damage them, but again cannot totally destroy them. Let’s keep our fingers crossed, even if I sound superstitious.

******

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

Double standards in understanding communalism?

April 11, 2014

Rohit Dhankar

[This one was send as a rejoinder to an article published in The Hindu. Their response is “as a policy we don’t carry rejoinder to opinion pieces. If there are factual inaccuracies we will be happy to correct them. Thanks for writing.” I am not a regular writer for newspapers, so can easily understand the lack of tightness in language and even argument; but it is strange that rejoinders to ‘opinion’ pieces are not published!]

Mrs. Sonia Gandhi recently has expressed a communal mind-set that believes that appeal to en-block voting to Muslims is ‘secular’ and a similar appeal to Hindus is communal. The general principle here is that Hindu communalism is communalism proper; and Muslim communalism, if not secular, is certainly a reaction. This thinking has been exhibited time and again by almost all so-called ‘secular’ parties. Is this mind-set and skewed logic limited to crafty politicians like Mrs. Gandhi? Unfortunately, by no means, Indian intelligential is the biggest and strongest up-holder of this un-defendable principle. To understand how subtly they built it into their thinking and writing let us analyse a recently published article by Praveen Swami. Mr. Swami wrote an article in The Hindu, on 1st April 14, titled “Second Rise of Indian Jihad”. (Here I must add that in past Mr. Swami has written fine and very balanced insightful pieces, the present analysis is only for the mentioned article; not on his all writings.) Its concluding wisdom is summarised by Mr. Swami as: “Each bombing the Indian Mujahideen carries out is a medium for a political message enmeshed with India’s dystopic communal landscape: that democratic politics cannot defend India’s Muslims.” This complex sentence needs simpler unpacking, to go beyond its impressiveness and deliberate scholarship. Let’s make some sense out of it:
1. Each bombing of Indian Mujahedeen is a medium for a political message. It is not senseless violence, and it is not important in-itself. It should be ‘read’ as a ‘medium’, like email is a medium for a message, bombing is a medium for a political message.
2. This message is caught in the landscape of human misery created by communalism. So the bombing is not irrational act of some sick religious bigotry. It is a rational act aimed at ending the human misery caused by communal violence.
3. The message itself is “that democratic politics cannot defend Indian Muslims”. And this message is acceptable to Indian intelligentsia of which Mr. Swami is a noted member.

This is a classic case of absolving Islamic terrorism of all moral responsibility and condoning it. Always someone else is responsible, the poor Islamist terrorist simply acts out of misery to end it. S/he is not a perpetrator of violence, s/he is only resisting violence inflicted on her. S/he is justified to do so as a human being. The ‘other’ who has instigated, nay forced him/her into it, should be blamed, and should be held responsible to stop this violence.

This conclusion occurs in the last paragraph of Mr. Swami’s piece with a nashihat to Indian politicians: “but it is time for politicians to act to heal our fractured nation.” This is strange that material quoted in Mr. Swami’s article to arrive at this fantastic conclusion goes squarely against it and lends itself to a very different conclusion. It is an exercise in mental dexterity to find a logic so that the quoted material may support Mr. Swami’s conclusion.

Let’s look at the key landmarks in Mr. Swami’s logic, I am paraphrasing parts from his article below.
Mr. swami tells us that the cadres of Indian jihad “are inheritors of a long political tradition”. That the bombings of 2008 September in Delhi, according to their perpetrators were carried “in the memory of two most eminent Mujahids of India: Syed Ahmed Shaheed and Shah Ismail Shaheed (may Allah bestow His Mercy upon them) who had raised the glorious banner of Jihad against the disbelievers.” It is notable that the jihad of Syed Ahmed and Shah Ismail was “against the disbelievers” and was carried out in early part of the 19th century, against Sikh Army, in Swat valley. Against what grievances and to alleviate what misery, apart from existence of disbelievers on God’s earth, Mr. Swami must know.

Mr. Swami quotes Yoginder Sikand approvingly: “that Islam alone was the solution to the problems of not just the Muslims of India, but of all Indians and, indeed, of the whole world.” “Islam alone” is notable, nothing else can solve the problems. Compare it with a Bombay based popular preacher Dr. Zakir Naik who says that Islam is a religion of peace and peace will come when all accept Islam. The interpretation being that peace can come only if all accept Islam. Till then if there is no peace, it is responsibility of those infidels who do not accept the only true faith.

Another important information and a chain in his logic that Mr. swami provides us is that “Ranchi resident Haider Ali, …, raised volunteers … for the bombing of the revered Buddhist shrine at Bodh Gaya last year, as an act of vengeance for communal violence against Myanmar’s Rohingya Muslim minority.” (Emphasis added) One starts thinking what the Buddhist shrine in Bodh Gaya had to do with communal violence in Myanmar? But that is a question only a small minded communal person can ask, as all opinion makers in India know that Muslims of the world; according to Islamist’s mind, even if a common peace loving Muslim does not believe that; are a unified umma and any act against the umma can be avenged by killing any non-believer in the world. So, of course, Mr. Swami wants us to believe that Bombing in Bodh Gaya was a legitimate “medium for a political message”, which Indian politicians and citizens should heed, and ‘heel’.

According to Mr. Swami “[T]he recruits” for the jihad “include young people, their minds fired by Internet Islamism, as well as veterans once linked to the proscribed Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI).” One needs only ten minutes on the net to see the true face of Internet Islamism. It is daily preached by Zakir Naik, ‘Islam if the only true religion, all others will go to hell. Those who do not accept Islam are the real cause of violence in the world’. SIMI was established in 1977 and, among other things “SIMI maintains that concepts of secularism, democracy and nationalism, keystones of Indian Constitution, are antithetical to Islam. They aim to restore the supremacy of Islam through the resurrection of the khilafat, emphasis on the Muslim ummah and the waging of jihad.” And all this to solve all the problems of the world by the only true faith. Which violence perpetrated on Muslims would Mr. Swami site for this?

The article is opened with a very revealing quote by an al-Qaeda ideologue Asim Umar: “[Y]ou who have ruled India for eight hundred years, you who lit the flame of the one true God in the darkness of polytheism: how can you remain in your slumber when the Muslims of the world are awakening?….. If the youth of the Muslim world have joined the battlefields with the slogan ‘Sharia or Martyrdom,’ and put their lives at stake to establish the Caliphate, how can you lag behind them? Why is there no storm in your ocean”. And suggests that some among the Indian Muslim youth are inspired by this kind of appeals.

And in the face of all this mentioned in the same article Mr. Swami, in his infinite wisdom, concludes that this zeal for bombing is “driven by communal events”, obviously by Hindus against Muslims! To quote: “The renewal of a jihadist constituency within India shouldn’t be a surprise: the rise of Mr. Modi, and the Hindu nationalist tendencies that he represents, has unleashed existential anxieties among large numbers of Indian Muslims.” Therefore, the ‘Hindu nationalist tendencies’ are to blame. Which communal violence was being avenged by jihad of Syed Ahmed in early 19th century? Why his jihad was more morally acceptable than anything else going on at that time? Why Islamists today are justified to glorify this jihad against “disbelievers” while other religious bigots would be wrong to do the same? Would avenging Somnath not be justified by the same logic?

It is important to understand this logic. What are the assumptions that Mr. Swami has necessarily to accept if he wants to come to his wise conclusion: “that democratic politics cannot defend Indian Muslims” and bombing is a political message to that effect incited by violence against Muslims? He necessarily has to accept that:
1. The bigoted miniscule fringe in Islam has the right based on their tradition to wage jihad against disbelievers.
2. The violence that happens in this jihad, even if not acceptable, is sympathetically understandable.
3. But the communal violence against this jihad is the cause of fresh rounds of jihad, and therefore, should be condemned.

Are these assumptions acceptable to silent Indian majority? Would people like Mr. Swami openly defend these assumptions or they will simply keep on using them un-articulated but in a clever manner? Is Mr. Swami aware that accepting his logic provides very sound arguments for Hindutva brigade? The logic in a nutshell can be expressed as:
• Since Mahmud Ghazni the Islam has been attacking Hinduism in various ways.
• At the least since Maulana Shirhindi’s reaction of separation from Hindus as a reaction to Akbar’s Deen-e-ilahi the idea of keeping clear of Hindus and if possible subjugating them was available to some Muslims.
• The jihad waged by Syed Ahmed in early 19th century was a part of the same pattern and tradition of annihilating all disbelievers.
• Sir Syed Ahmed khan’s two nation theory was directed against Hindus and finally divided the nation. It was part of the same pattern to make the whole world accept Islam or not to live in harmony with others.
• The modern day proclamations of likes of Zakir Naik are manifestations of the same tendencies.
• Islamist bombing is driven by this idea and wherever Muslims see a political conflict (a natural occurring in any democratic polity) they will invoke religion and rather than peaceful democratic negotiations will start bombing.
• Therefore, Hindus are under direct attack of this Islamisation project. If they want to save themselves—the existential anxiety—they have to unite and counter this violence. If they do not have expertise in bombing, let them have large scale communal violence.
• Therefore, they can be condoned and need healing, recommended by Mr. Swami.

Are we ready to accept this logic? Obviously not, it is all poisonous and product of a sick mind. Then why not the jihadi logic also a product of a sick mind? Why jihadi violence should be condoned, why others should be held responsible for this, why others should be charged with the responsibility of healing this sickness? Why should it not be pointed out that all this logic of revenge is wrong and the perpetrators are responsible; they should heal themselves of this skewed mind-set?
This kind of always available condoning and explaining-away the jihadi acts will strengthen a similar logic in Hindu communalists. And there is a difference in ‘explanation’ and ‘explaining away’; the above mentioned trend of opinion making does not ‘explain’ it ‘explain away’.

Overwhelming majority of Indian population consists of two major religions: Hinduism and Islam. Hinduism by many is considered a conglomerate of many religious sects rather than a single religion. Islam is more often considered a single religion in the classic sense of the term ‘religion’, but does have its own sects and factions. Here, without getting into this fine distinction, I am treating both as religious groups.

Both these religious groups have their bigoted lunatic fringes. The fringe elements have a mind-set of victim-hood and vengeance. They also feel threatened by the other and want to gather strength to contain, if not to annihilate the other. Support and sympathy to the extremist fringes from within their respective communities is a matter of speculation, there are no hard data to say one has greater support then the other. But condoning and explaining-away their heinous acts by Indian intellectuals clearly has a pattern. The Hindu communalist is recognised for what he is, a communalist; but mostly a Muslim communalist is seen and defended as a victim.

Unless we treat each one of them fairly and as equally condemnable, we will strengthen the rivalry by comparison, the fringes will grow. The healing has to be two pronged: kind and humane treatment by the state and calling a spade a spade. The idea of India as a Hindu-rashtra has to be condemned and firmly put down. This idea has to be shown morally wrong, politically unviable, theoretically stupid and totally unacceptable. But simultaneously the ideas of universal Islamism, Caliphate and establishing Shariya as the universal code have to be condemned, shown morally bankrupt, politically impossible and theoretically stupid.

The second cannot be done without bringing in their religious figures (mythological and historical); be that Manu, Rama, Krishna or Muhammad; in the debate and showing that ideas associated with them might be unacceptable, wrong and morally debased, as well as some of them might be very laudable. The historical sheen from their persona has to be taken off and they have to be shown as ordinary mortals which are fallible and can be wrong, even severely condemnable. Similarly the principles articulated in their religious scriptures; be that Gita, Veda, Manusmriti, Quran or Hadith collections; have to be analysed and their untenable defence and soft interpretation have to be abandoned. If there is bigotry and in today’s world morally unacceptable ideas in them in them, it has to be shown clearly and status of God’s word has to be declared as bunkum for all. This has no value in public affairs and politics; however essential it may be for the believers.

Thus three principles that can help us remain secular and contain religious bigotry are:
1. Equal treatment to all perpetrators of communal disharmony and violence.
2. An unforgiving rational critique of their religious books and religious figures. Creation of an environment of tolerance of genuine criticism; even if that makes them angry at first.
3. Kind but non-condoning and firm treatment to bring sense to the misguided. Zero tolerance for the seriously indoctrinated bigots.

Mrs. Gandhi’s and Mr. Swami’s ways of thinking and acting will increase communalism and will not combat it.
In the vitiated atmosphere of India today, I feel compelled to state that no mention of BJP, VHP, Modi, RSS etc. does not mean that they have been paragons of communal harmony and that they are not to blame, or that they are any less responsible. It their divisive politics and hate mongering is generally accepted, and rightly so. They are not mentioned here for the simple reason that this piece is a response to Mr. Swami’s article, and not a general analysis of roots and kinds of communalism in India. Reading support or condoning of BJP etc. in this again will be an example of the same skewed logic used by Mr. Swami in arriving at his untenable conclusions.

******

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

BJP Manifesto 2014: Sundry comments

April 8, 2014

Rohit Dhankar

Introduction

William James in the very beginning of his lectures on Pragmatism quotes Chesterton: “There are some people—and I am one of them—who think that the most practical and important thing about a man is still his view of the universe. … We think that for a general about to fight an enemy it is important to know the enemy’s numbers, but still more important to know the enemy’s philosophy. We think the question is not whether the theory of the cosmos affects matters, but whether in the long run anything else affects them.” [All emphases added, unless indicated otherwise.]

I was reminded of this quote while glancing through BJP Election Manifesto 2014, and decided to read some portions will greater care. I also had to make another assumption: that what the party is writing in the manifesto is an honest representation of their ideas, views, opinions and intentions. I know this second assumption is false for all political parties in India; their manifestos are instruments of deception and cheating the gullible Indian voter. But I am not socio-political analyst; only an ordinary citizen with a reasonably useful mind. So will use that to understand BJP’s philosophy; and will depend on others for a better deeper socio-political and historical analysis.

From this point of view I paid reasonable attention (cannot spend too much time on political matters ) to the preface of their manifesto and to some selected parts like education, terrorism, cultural heritage, etc. And am sharing my tentative results with friends here.

The vision and philosophy in Preface

The manifesto declare that: “BJP recognizes that no nation could chart out its domestic or foreign policies unless it has a clear understanding about itself, its history, its roots, its strengths and failings.” And yet makes many supposed to be patriotic but false claims: India being the oldest civilisation, unmatched progress in science and technology, universal prosperity, equality and care in ancient Indian society. Paints a glorious golden picture, blames all ills first to the Europeans and then to the Congress. Now, most political analysts will find this a trivial matter, as all parties praise the nation in elections, especially BJP to retain their ‘nationalist’ tag. But then it is again failing to understand the historical roots properly, and is failing to take into consideration the “failings” of Indian culture and society. This is important to understand what is the vision on which they want to build the modern India, and chart out their “domestic or foreign policies”, as per their own claims.

The second point that one sees clearly in the preface and throughout the manifesto is that the modern day Indian culture is a direct progeny of Ancient Indian Hindu, Budhhist and Jain culture. There is mention of preserving cultural heritage of all groups but in painting the heritage culture there is no direct mention of contribution of the Islamic culture. One wonders how it is possible to acquire “a clear understanding about itself, its history, its roots” if one completely leaves out contribution to present day Indian culture made by Islamic culture and even European interaction? BJP worthies cannot even explain as common a food item as halwa and the kurtas they all don without reference to Islamic culture.

They think that “Indian freedom struggle” was inspired by “a clear vision of the civilizational consciousness of India”, the leaders (Nehru not included) “had a vision to reconstruct the political and economic institutions of India as a continuum of civilizational consciousness”. BJP fails even to look properly at the preamble of Indian constitution and recognise that the values there in are learnt and imbibed in interaction with rest of the world; and that here is a clear disjunction between those values and values of caste infected Indian feudal society; the part of our cultural heritage.

There is nothing wrong in national pride; but that pride has to be of a critical nature, recognising what strengths the heritage bestowed on us and also recognising the problems it bequeathed simultaneously. BJP leaves out the second.

The manifesto recognises the need “to arrive at a consensus about the ‘Idea’ of India and also to think and redesign our approach in consonance with the seekings and preferences of the Indian people.” And simultaneously to “[P]ick up the thread from the point where the continuum of our civilizational consciousness was lost and reorient the polity in consonance with those strong points of Indian psyche which will be the engine for our future glory.” As a citizen how do I do that? What strong points of the civilizational consciousness do they want to propose to citizens to consider? The only one that figures is “vasudhaiva kutumbakam”. Good one, but when did the Indian society and powers that controlled it actually used this principle in practice?

If they were open enough not to put all their eggs in the basket of ancient India and Hindu/Buddhist/Jain cultural heritage, if they were open enough to include contributions of Islamic and European thought, if they were open enough to see the civilisation still progressing in global interaction, if they were open enough to see that the civilizational consciousness constantly rebuilds itself; then the possibility of consensus on the ‘idea of India’ would have been much greater in modern times.

But then the manifesto forgets this penchant for civilizational consciousness right after Murali Manor Joshi’s signature at the end of the preface and only uses it where convenient. The economic policy and statecraft has almost nothing to do with the ancient Indian civilisation.

I am not here to analyse the manifesto in full, am just commenting on some of the issues that bother me and may be many other people.

Some principles

The manifesto repeats at several places ideas of inclusiveness, equality of all citizens and ‘unity in diversity’. “India constitutes of all its’ people, irrespective of caste, creed, religion or sex. It constitutes of all the communities – ethnic, social and cultural groups and also our culture, which is defined by tolerance and co-existence. The hallmark of India is “Unity in Diversity”. It constitutes of each and every inch of our land, its natural resources and mental and physical energy we possess. It constitutes of all the institutions made in the past and present.”

And then declares that “For BJP:
• the only philosophy and religion of a Government should be India First.
• the only epic of a Government should be India’s Constitution.
• the only power of a Government should be the power of the people.
• the only prayer of a Government should be the welfare of its people.
• the only way of a Government should be ‘Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas’.”

Sounds beautiful and very just. But the relationship of a democratic national with its citizens, to many people, and definitely to me, is rather complex. Well, to name it: it is humans first. The nation (India First) is fine as long as it upholds the principles of freedom, equality of opportunity, justice and fraternity; but what makes “India First” is not some ancient loyalty: it is possibility of upholding and fighting for these principles. Therefore, the constitution first. The constitution is the only thing that builds a modern democratic nation. The manifesto gives indications at many places that the idea of India is something independent of that, rooted in ancient cultural consciousness and that the constitution is only a tool to uphold that idea of India.

Two traditional issues: Kashmir and Uniform Civil Code

On Jammu and Kashmir “BJP reiterates its stand on the Article 370, and will discuss this with all stakeholders and remains committed to the abrogation of this article.” Many people find this line objectionable. Actually, personally I find nothing objectionable in it for two reasons. One, special articles of this nature create a fracture line in a nation; and two, they are simply reiterating their commitment to abrogation in discussion “with all stakeholders”. Well, our constitution does give us a right to hold ideas and also to try to convince others to accept them. A peaceful democratic dialogue is within the limits of that.

I also find their stand on uniform civil code unobjectionable. “Article 44 of the constitution of India lists Uniform Civil Code as one of the Directive Principles of state policy. … BJP reiterates its stand to draft a Uniform Civil Code, drawing upon the best traditions and harmonizing them with the modern times.” The reasons for finding it unobjectionable are exactly the same as in case of Article 370, mentioned above.

Cultural Heritage issue

But their understanding of what they call “Cultural Heritage” as deeply divisive and disturbing. If one really believes that “the only epic of a Government should be India’s Constitution” then what business do they have “to explore all possibilities within the framework of the constitution to facilitate the construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya”?

Well, the promised “exploration” might be within the “framework of the constitution” but why facilitate “construction of the Ram Temple”? There is no credible evidence that the Ram as seen in Ramayana and Ramacharit Manas is a historical figure, at the best he is a mythological hero. Mythological heroes are not born in actual brick and mortar palaces. There is no evidence that there was a Ram Temple at the place where Babri Masjid stood till 1992. So why this commitment to a mythology of one religion? How does it square with the principle of “the only epic of a Government should be India’s Constitution”?

Then they have a commitment to Ram Setu, cleaning of Ganga and cow protection as well. One can understand the commitment to protect Ram Setu if there are acceptable ecological reasons; but not because it happens to be seen by some as cultural heritage. One can understand commitment to clean rivers; but not by declaring Ganga as ‘spiritual’ life line. One can understand cow protection on economic and agricultural reasons if there is evidence to that effect; but not cow as a holy animal.

If one reads this section with the preface, then the real import of the preface come through: this is the civilizational consciousness they are talking of, this is the cultural heritage they want to preserve; and that is divisive.

The Hindus

Another divisive statement is “India shall remain a natural home for persecuted Hindus and they shall be welcome to seek refuge here.” Why Hindus alone? Why not all persecuted people? Does it amount to giving special status to Hindus, which is denied to Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, and Jews who definitely happen to be part of Indian population and proud Indian citizens?

On education

There should be a separate article on their educational vision. Here all I will say is that the school education will be dominated by shoddy ideas that played major role in NCFSE 2000 and higher education will be dominated by ‘utilitarian’ values if they come to power and try to fulfil their manifesto promises. Not encouraging at all. But as I said, am not going into details here.

In spite of so many nice promises they make one has to be prepared for resistance and keeps ones fingers crossed if they unfortunately really come to power.

******

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

Fighting communalism with communalism: Mrs. Gandhi’s way

April 7, 2014

Rohit Dhankar

Sonia Gandhi appeals to minority voters ‘not to split secular vote’. Minority in her appeal, and mostly in present-day Indian conversations, is a euphemism for Muslim community. In plain language Sonia Gandhi is calling upon Muslims to vote en-block in favour of her own Congress Party. The assumptions are that (i) Muslim vote is secular vote, by the grace of its very religious affiliation, and (ii) Congress Party of Nehru-Gandhi dynasty is a secular party by its very nature.

Shahi Imam after a day or two of Sonia’s appeal, himself appeals to Muslims to support the Congress party. His appeal is to a community identified by its religion, he himself is a religious authority whose influence ends with Muslims, and he has the authority to issue fatwa for Muslims. In this particular case, he is not issuing a fatwa, but his appeal is certainly in capacity of his religious office. In what sense this man is more secular or less communal than Praveen Togadia or Ashok Singhal is known only to likes of Sonia Gandhi and Mulayam Singh. This is a man who has scared even the law of the land and Delhi police by his communal might and threats of communal violence. Now Sonia Gandhi appeals him to help keep “secular votes” united.

Congress is supposed to be fighting communalism and divisiveness used by BJP. BJP has a history of communalism and divisive politics, and there is no evidence of a change of heart in the party. Therefore, the claim that BJP is indulging in communal and divisive politics is easy to accept. It seems to be true by all available evidence.

And still the Congress president’s appeal raises very serious question: can communalism of one section of citizens be fought with communalism of another section of citizens? Or more seriously, is it the case that communal appeal to one section of citizens is really ‘communal’ and to other section of citizens is ‘secular’? If one appeals to Hindus to vote en-block then it is a communal act and when one appeals to Muslims for the same it is a secular act? This exposes the blatant communalism of congress. It is also an example of so well-known Muslim appeasement. But what else could Indian citizens expect from someone who has captured power on pure dynastic loyalties sustained by feudal mind set of Indian public.

This precisely is the mind-set of Indian National Congress, this precisely is the reason that gives BJP its strength. As long as the political parties of the country have this double standard we will not be able to defeat communalism in our society and politics.

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

Wendy Doniger’s The Hindus

April 3, 2014

Rohit Dhankar
The debate around Wendy Doniger’s The Hindus has stopped being interesting. But I was reminded about it in conversation with some scholars yesterday. There are some partially formed ideas in my mind about this whole episode, they came to for in this conversation. So thought of sharing these ideas on this informal forum. Obviously they are not fully developed.

The petitioners
So far this time the petitioners cannot be faulted on legal grounds.
• I am not aware if they have issued any threats of violence or actually indulged in it.
• They have countered Doniger on her own ground. Provided a list of errors, mistranslations and untenable interpretations. This is appropriate and proper way of countering a book. Veracity/acceptability of all this could be more or less objectively ascertained.
• They have used the law of the land. If the law is faulty one cannot blame the petitioners for its use. Make better laws, but as long as they are available, one cannot stop citizens from using them.
• They claim some of Doniger’s interpretations etc. are offensive to Hindus. They are no representatives of Hindus and cannot claim anything on behalf of all Hindus. However, they have the right to express their own opinion if they felt slighted. This is their opinion, they have right to express it; but withdrawal of a book on this basis certainly is not justified.

Penguin
• It is Penguin’s right to decide whether they should consider the claimed errors and misrepresentations weighty enough to withdraw the book.
• This is also their right to decide if the legal battle is becoming too costly for them. We cannot demand moral commitment in the face of financial losses from a business, a publishing company is ultimately a business.
• But we can morally blame a business for not upholding the moral principle of freedom of speech, which is so integral to publishing. And Penguin can be blamed for that. There is a difference between a binding demand and moral blame.

Wendy Doniger
• I have read only one book by her about a year and half back, actually the book under question.
• She did not come across as a scholar to me at all. It is more of a popular writing with shoddy scholarship.
• Mistranslation is replete.
• Misinterpretation is the meet of the book.
• Still there are many places where she shows insight and also presents not-commonly known references and flashes of insight.
• At places she sounds to be deliberately courting controversy.
• But an author has the right to do all this. And authors do make errors.
• In my view authors do have the right to offend deliberately, if they want to oppose certain views.

And still to my mind it is a serious issue of freedom of speech/expression

• We should oppose the laws that could be used too easily and too heavily against the authors and publishers. Authors and publishers need more space in a free and democratic society.
• We should disapprove of the weak-kneed publishers and shun them.
• We should expose and disapprove of citizens who use unwanted laws to propagate their own views and thwart others; it is an issue of opinion making and not disallowing them from using such laws.
• We should express our solidarity even for bad and shoddy authors.
• But we should also appreciate the more legal and informed path the petitioners are taking. That allows them a legitimate path to air their grievances. This is an improvement upon threats of violence, burning properly, killing of authors, and so on. This could be considered a step towards finally accepting that the books should be countered by books/articles only. The movement could be seen as resolving grievances through violence–>legal recourse–>Countering academically and through informed debates.

Legal recourse is a form of discourse, we should appreciate that.

This is purely on the basis of available information. It is fairly possible that the Shiksha Bachao Samiti (or whatever it is) is actually taking the legal path only to foment trouble enough to create street violence. If we see signs of that, of course, they should be condemned and countered on different grounds.

Doniger’s own defense in a New York Times article:

As usual: half-truths, misinterpretations and self-importance.

Can I call Lalu’s, Khap Panchayat’s and Maoists’s interpretation of Democracy an “Indian Understanding of Democracy”? There is no problem in including all this as various interpretations of democracy, but can one say that that is how actually Indian democracy looks or is? That is what Doniger does.

In the NYT article she says nothing about her faulty translation. Under-emphasises the other interpretation of symbols—for example, Lingam also is supposed to be a symbol of ‘aadi creative energy’.

By the way I have no problem regarding her book. All badly written books have equal right to be published and sold. But she does not even respond to charges made by someone as intellectually puny as Dinanath Batra and his friends!!
*****

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

Digantar Schools: Will we be able to continue them?

March 19, 2014

Digantar schools have been providing quality education and developing educational ideas and practices of significance for last more than three decades (read the Introduction below).

The schools now are in danger of closing down due to lack of funds. We have been in negotiation with a few donors but it seems support for running costs from 1st April 2014 onwards is unlikely to come forward.

We do have funders for modest infrastructural costs and our infrastructure for a small senior secondary school is perhaps acceptable. We also have some organisational reserves to run the schools for about a month or so. But beyond that we will be forced to close down the schools. That will immediately stop education of more than 500 children, majority of them being girls and about 50 of the girls being at the secondary and senior secondary level.

In case you happen to know any funding agency who might be interested in supporting the schools please pass this appeal with on, in case you agree with our view that the continuation of Digantar schools still have potential to contribute to educational thought and practice in the country.
With best regards
Rohit

A Very Short Introduction to Digantar: for schools

Digantar is a Jaipur based organization which works in school education. (Further details could be seen at http://www.digantar.org) Our motto is “Education for Equity and Justice”. We work towards this ideal through education that makes learners independent in thinking and action; so that they can contribute to socio-political and economic well being of the society.

We started as a small experimental school in 1978 and subsequently registered in 1987 as a non-profit society. Digantar schools are based on the belief that aims of education should be to make the child self-motivated and independent learner; to become a critical and contributing citizen in a democracy. Towards this end, we have been making attempts to conceptualize school curriculum, and pedagogic practices which could help the children develop their rational capabilities and exercise autonomy in learning. This we see as necessary for development of active and critical citizen in a democracy that has justice and equality as its basic values.

Digantar, at present, runs two schools, where more than 500 children get their education. Over last two decades, the schools got recognition as pursuing alternative pedagogic practices where the learners’ rational capabilities and capability to learn independently are respected. The schools can also be regarded to have made a modest contribution to thinking on the issues of aims of education, curriculum design, pedagogy and teacher education. It has helped us learn and develop our thinking in education. Taking forward the learning and experiments in school, we were encouraged to contribute in educational discourse in mainstream education system.

With the encouragement and support from some like-minded organizations, we began to work with different organizations, and governments. The nature of our engagements with other organizations and governments have largely been of resource support and training. Over the last two decades, we had opportunities to work with multiple organizations and various state governments. Some of the major projects that we have taken up and successfully completed in the last two decades include the resource support to District Primary Education Programme (DPEP) in Madhya Pradesh, evaluation of DPEP impact in Kerala and capacity building workshops for personnel from eight Hindi speaking states. Working with State Council for Educational Research and Training (SCERT), Chhattisgarh to help develop their textbooks for elementary classes, and subsequently to develop their Diploma of Education Programme for teacher education. We also had chance to play significant part in development of National Curriculum Framework (NCF) 2005 and subsequent textbooks. In collaboration with Government of Rajasthan, and other agencies, we undertook a large scale and major project called Quality Education Programme, in Baran district of Rajasthan. The Programme focused on developing in-service teacher education programme towards realizing quality education. We have also been working with Azim Premji Foundation to mutually contribute to each other’s programmes and initiatives.

Besides several other works and programmes, one of the initiatives which we consider worth-mentioning as part of introduction is our collaboration with Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, in their innovative post-graduate programme in Elementary Education. We were one of five collaborators in beginning the programme with responsibility to develop curriculum, and course contents and teaching.

The purpose of this brief introduction of Digantar is to underline the fact that all this has been possible because of our schools. Digantar schools serve three purposes simultaneously.

1. They address the local need of good quality education in a community where female literacy was less than 2% when we came to work in this area in 1989. The overwhelming majority of girls in the area who have completed elementary education are Digantar students. There is a visible change in girls’ participation in education and mothers’ participation in decision making regarding their daughters’ education.
2. We learn from the experience how to run good quality schools at the same cost per-child as the government education system in Rajasthan. This learning enables us to develop new ideas in curriculum, pedagogy and teacher education. The learning from the schools is used in formulating our own projects and capacity building at the state and national levels.
3. The direct experience in running of the schools helps us develop ideas that contribute to national discourse on education and schools serve as a site for field exposure in innovative good quality education for several teacher education colleges, government projects and other organisations working in elementary education.

Thus the Digantar Schools are contributing significantly to development of educational thought and practice in the country. It is generally recognised that continuous development of new ideas and practices are essential for healthy growth of any education system. For example the whole nation for last 3 years is grappling with the idea of Continuous Comprehensive Evaluation (CCE) to better understand children’s learning trajectories and simultaneously do away with stressful and wasteful narrow examinations. Digantar schools are practicing such an evaluation system for last more than 30 years. Many of the pedagogical and curricular recommendations in NCF and RtE have been a normal way of running and organising schools in Digantar from day one of its inception.

As we all know, the funding environment in last decade and half has changed. Many of the donors have declared themselves to be direct implementers on the ground, thereby reducing Voluntary Agencies to the status of junior implementation partners without their own agendas. The other trend is to fund projects which bring about large systemic changes. There are very few, if any, who recognise that large scale systemic changes require ideas and practices concerning aims, curriculum, pedagogy and teacher education, that can be taken forward. The core ideas of change that NCF and RtE recommend are all generated and perfected at small scale schools in India and abroad. Drying out of support for schools that spot educational problems and develop solutions on the ground will emaciate the system in terms of new visions and ideas.

Digantar schools which have been running since September 1978 and have contributed to educational thought and practice in the country through last more than three decades are in danger of closing down after 31st March 2014. We have no supporter to continue the schools. It will immediately effect education of more about 500 children, majority of whom are girls; and will shut down one significant site of educational experiments.

Therefore, this introduction also becomes an appeal to seek further funding for these schools. If any reader happens to know a funding agency who might be interested in supporting such schools, we request her/him to forward this introduction and appeal to them.

Still hoping to continue the work we began 35 years back.
******

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

How secular is our politics?

January 28, 2014

Rohit Dhankar

I am assuming secularism should be one of the most important values in current Indian politics. That makes the following questions very important. Secularism according to International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 2nd edition, edited William A. Darity Jr., Macmillan “….in the twentieth century has come to refer to two interrelated practices: (1) a mode of political organization in which the state is neutral with reference to all established religions; and (2) later in the century, a political practice of the state that protects the rights of minorities in a multicultural society.”
Some questions:

1. If a state and polity realises (actually achieves) (1), is (2) needed?

2. Are (1) and (2) always consistent?

3. If in a particular situation (1) and (2) contradict each other which one should get precedence?

4. Are political strategies specially designed to appeal to religious groups secular?

5. Does India actually have a secular political party?

Any opinions?
******

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

AAP: Is the hope still alive?

January 25, 2014

Rohit Dhankar

This morning I received AAP’s mail, the general mail which they send to everyone in their mailing list, stating in brief their position on Barati issue and Kejriwal’s dharna. The email also had a video link. I started with that link and spent about 3 hours trying to look at several other videos, including other media reports and interviews with various AAP leaders.

I know what I say in this blog next is going to prove me jaldbaaz, impatient, biased etc. But in the interest of fairness I must admit that there are many things I did not know, may have been biased. I took a principled position, but on incomplete information. I still hold the principles: constitutionally elected people have to function within its limits. We can hope any positive changes only from those who understand the constitutional obligations and don’t play the same power games.

But in the light of the new information I gained in my careful watching of the videos shows that the absolute position I was taking about Kejriwal and Bharati was mistaken.

1. It seems that the residents of the colony Khidki had been complaining to the police for long and several FIRs are already in the police records on this issue. The police took no action to investigate into the case.

2. Bharati did aske for the raid, yes, but it seems in the case of drugs police has the power to conduct a raid on the basis of FIR and judicial warrant is not necessarily required. (I am assuming this to be true, am not sure.) Alternately the police can cordon and seal a building without entering it and can acquire the needed warrant before the raid. This is within the powers of the police on the basis of reliable information.

3. There was reasonably reliable information on the basis of the testimony of the residents, sting operation of a TV channel and actual scenes on the roads that drug abuse and flash trade (?) might be going on in the said building(s).

If 1 to 3 above is correct information my accusation of not following due procedures and becoming law unto himself on Bharati were mistaken.

Kejriwal seems to be saying that dharna became a necessity because the central government was not prepared to follow due procedure. There were complaints against the SHOs and the government took no action. The government was not prepared to conduct a time bound enquiry against them in spite of there being a prima face justification in terms of either collusion or inaction. An enquiry without removing (for the time of enquiry) the officer in question from his position is unlikely be fare. I find this reasonable. If Kejriwal had to go on dharana to challenge this inaction on the part of the government, my charge on him of breaking constitutional norms was wrong.

I am writing this correction to my last blog in the interest of fairness. I know readers of this blog are only my friends, so it is to explain to them, nothing more. I must have collected more information before forcefully condemning AAP on these two issues.

******

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

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »