Reflection on some slogans-2

January 10, 2020

Rohit Dhankar

[Before I go to the next set of slogans, it has become necessary to note that this writing is somewhat behind the changing character of the protests, the protests seem to have developed a positive character as well.

Let me explain: I am firmly for CAA, NRC and NPR, with the condition that NRC and NPR are carried out in an absolutely just and transparent manner. And I believe that is possible. I also believe that whether BJP wants or not the government can be forced to conduct this exercise in a fair and transparent manner.

The protests against CAA, NRC and NPR are becoming a movement. Strangely, in spite of this movement being AGAINST my own stand, it makes me happy. BECAUSE it is learning how to distinguish between the present-day government and the nation. Because it is discovering that tricolor is something to be respected, rather than a symbol of hated nationalism. Because it is discovering that singing national anthem is a powerful means of declaring allegiance to the country while simultaneously fighting against government decisions which we don’t agree with. Because this movement is discovering that it is the constitution which binds us together, it is the constitution which confers sovereignty of will on each of us, which becomes the corner stone in fight for justice. Because this movement is learning to see that India is something to be proud of. Because this movement is slowly but surely discarding the India bashing rhetoric and learning to fight with the present government while declaring firm ownership and allegiance to India that is Bharat.

I am for the CAA, I am AGAINST the movement opposing CAA; BUT the positive affirmation of India by my CAA-opposing compatriots also brings joy to heart. We will fight out our differences, but will swim or sink together. This is a democratic fight amongst us, not between ‘us’ and ‘them’. This is a nation making up its mind, not enemies fighting to vanquish each other. We are one people and are very lucky to have diversity of opinions, cultures and faiths. We all have equal right to try to shape India the way we wish, as long as we feel, believe and say it is “My India”.]

As a response to part 1 of this piece some friends have suggested a critique of right-wing slogans as well. I will come to that in the third part, if find some worth analyzing right wing slogans. Many right-wing slogans are clearly communal and are recognize as such by all. Some others are abusive: desh ke gaddaron ko, goli maro salon ko. Some are stupid: Dilli police tum lath bajao, ham tumhare saath hain. There is nothing to write about them. They simply express opposition and hatred. I am writing about so-called liberal slogans because they are seen as secular and not communal.

In the last part we had a brief look at a set of slogans used in protests against CAA etc. In this part trying to understand some more slogans used in the same protests. They are:

  1. “Allahu Akbar”
  2. “……. Insha Allah, Insha Allah”
  3. “Tera mera rishta kya? La ilaha illallah”

What do these slogans mean?

Allahu akbar: also written as “Allah hu akbar” and “Allah akbar”. The simple meaning is “God is the greatest”. Muslims use this daily in their prayers and, many other occasions, in a peaceful manner. But it is also a war cry, used my Muhammad himself. Terrorists use it regularly in their attacks. Even in its simple and peaceful meaning Muslims use it to remind themselves the most important belief of their faith: Allah is the greatest.

People who do not know Quran may easily accept the translation “The God is the greatest” and have no problem with it. Because atheists generally don’t mind people’s proclamation of their religious beliefs and believers in all religions have no problem with God being the greatest, when “God” is understood as the ultimate divinity not connected with any particular religion. But Allah of Quran is not that God. Allah expressly forbids setting up equals to Him. Sure 98:6 warns “Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Qur’in and Prophet Muhammad) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikun will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.” Al-Mushrikun mains “idolaters”, worshippers of idols. One can multiply such examples from Quran in dozens where Allah warns that all those who believe in any god other than Allah will burn in hell fire for eternity.

The people who translate “Allah” as ‘the God’ in general without associating it with any particular God, be that of Bible or Gita; are admirable and have good intention of harmony. The believers in Quran when understand Allah as God in general, they are also trying for harmony being and being open minded. But at the same time Allah himself does not like being worshipped as Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna or Rama. They all are lesser and false Gods according to Quran and have no intersession power. Worshippers of all these gods will go to hell fire. Therefore, shouting of “Allahhu akbar” is a proclamation of supremacy of Allah, nay, rather a proclamation of only divine existence and of falsity of all other god.

In a protest to save secularism of the country, to establish equality of all religions, this is rather a strange way of being secular. “Har Har Mahadeva”, a Hindu war cry, will be equally objectionable in a protest for secularism. “Jai Shri Ram”, which is graduating into a war cry from a simple greeting, will also be equally objectionable.

“Insha Allah”: in its simple meaning is “God willing”. Many people say “Bhagwan ne chaha to” or “Ishwar ki kripa se”. I don’t see any thing objectionable about it, even when Allah happens to be a very stern and jealous god. This is only a way of making a wish. However, it depends what the wish is. The first time I heard this slogan was in 1916 JNU episode “Bharat tere tukde honge … Insha Allah, Insha Allah”. This certainly is objectionable. But in the current protests, as far as I know, this slogan is not used in this manner. Therefore, nothing the issue with it.

“Tera mera rishta kya? La ilaha illallah”: This is part of declaration of faith in Islamic monotheism. The full version being “laa ilaaha illa Allah Muhammadun rasool ullah”. Which means “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” Also translated as “Nothing worshipped is worthy of worship but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” Thus “La ilaha illallah” means “There is no god but Allah”. The full slogan would been “What is the relationship between you and me? There is no god but Allah”. In other words: only relationship between us is that of faith in Allah as the only God.

In secular India, one would assume, the most important relationship between citizens is acceptance of and commitment to the constitution; in addition to our shared past and culture of thousands of years. This slogan means rejecting all other relationships but that of faith in Islam. This clearly separates Muslim population or declares that ‘if you do not believe in one God, Allah, then I have no relationship with you.’ I have unconfirmed information that the slogan was used by Muslim League in this later meaning while raising demand for Pakistan.

To my mind this slogan is clearly divisive, Islamic supremacist and seriously objectionable.

Some icons of secularism

In recent protests the so-called liberals (SCLs) have projected some people as icons of secularism. It would be instructive in understanding their thinking to have a look at proclamations of these icons.

One of two icons of secularism is created out of Jamia protests is Ladeeda Sakhaloon. Together with Aysha Renna N her pictures are splashed everywhere in media, including an article written by a very reputed intellectual regarding learning democracy from youth. These two icons were interviewed by another so-called secular Barkha Datt, and their zeal is praised by SCLs no end. What Ms. Sakhaloon has to say about secularism is quoted below.

“During the protest gathering happened yesterday. Some liberals dictated us to refrain from chanting “Insha Allah” and “Allahu Akbar”. We have only submitted completely towards Almighty. We have abandoned you secular slogans long before. Those slogans will be raised loudly again and again. Those slogans are our spirit, our imagination and the one which refines our existence. You might be in a hurry to prove your secular loyalty, but we are not. We are and will exist in every space as sons, daughters, grandsons and granddaughters of Malcolm X, Ali Musliyar and Variamkunnath. Those slogans are our spirit and we have derived our imagination of being political from our forefathers. For you people this might be mere slogans, for us this is the one which liberate ourselves. At this point we are clear, we don’t hold any burden of chanting secular slogans and may not fit your secular vocabulary. Our engagement and approach altogether is different from you and is the fundamental difference. So, please don’t dictate us.”

I have quoted this declaration of Ms. Sakhaloon in full and unedited. Because I do not take it to be a childish or youthful boast. To me it is a declaration of Islamic supremacy and jihadist attitude. Raising such people to the status of defenders of democracy and icons of secularism is dangerous for India and an insult to the intelligence of genuinely secular citizens who believe in harmony and diversity.

She clearly declares that she, and her ilk, do not care for secularism. They derive their inspiration from the slogans I have analysed above. The three names she mentions as her ideals are very instructive. Malcolm X was an Islamist who considered white race as devil, thought its demise is imminent. Wished for white genocide. Other two, Ali Musliyar and Variamkunnath were leaders of Mappila riots (Malabar Rebellion) which though was also against British rule but indulged in Hindu genocide through forced conversions and mass killing. I can not understand what secularism means for SCLs if Ms. Sakhaloon is their secular icon. If you do, please explain to me. This person is clearly an Islamic supremacist jihadi as far as I can understand.

Another secular icon SCLs discovered during 2016 JNU episode is Shehla Rashid. Let’s see what she has to say about these slogans. Ms. Rashid twitted her views in a series of messages directed at SCLs on 30th December 2020. Let’s have a look at some of them.

“If you say ‘Hey Bhagwan’ in mixed gatherings, if you light lamps at public functions, if you use religious metaphors from the Mahabharat and Ramayana in political speeches, if your mythological works support your political work, you can’t oppose only ‘Muslim’ identity assertion!” She considers use of religio-cultural metaphors as ‘identity assertion’. And forgets that no one ever objects to “ya Allah” and “ya khuda” in common conversation; they are like “He Bhagwan”. The objection was to something much more threatening than that. However, lighting lamps in public functions is an issue which, in my view is difficult to justify. I am not sure whether it is a religious symbol or cultural without any association with religion.

“If you are embarrassed by Muslims’ cultural clarion calls, then you’re not an ally. If you are ashamed of us, then you’re part of the problem. If you are an ally, please understand that our religious, cultural and human rights are as non-negotiable as are yours.” She is asserting that Muslim clarion call will come in the form of Islamic supremacy (Allahu Akbar) and declaration of believers’ brotherhood (La ilaha illallah) and also declaration that this is the only relationship they are ready to accept. Also, note the belligerence “you are not an ally. … you are part of the problem”.

After a series of such belligerent tweets she gives a manual to SCLs: “A manual for allies: If you are opposed to Muslim identity politics, why do you want leadership of a movement that is being led and sustained by Muslims, for which Muslims are paying with their blood?

You want to be an ally? Sure! Please start by demanding that Dalit Muslims get reservation under the SC category – an instance of faith-based discrimination against Muslims by the Indian state.

Let’s try this one more time: 1) This fight is about Muslims, not about Islam. 2) Muslims are asserting their identity because the attack is based on their identity. 3) #La_ilaha_illALLAH is a cultural clarion call like ‘Hellalujah!’ or ‘Jesus!’ or ‘Hey Ram!’ or ‘Wahe Guru!’”

Now, she forgets that no one shouts “Hey Ram” or “Wahe Guru” in a protest against CAA on the ground that it is against secularism. She does not admit the clear contradiction. Second, Hey Ram and Wahe Guru are neither declaration of supremacy nor declaration of only basis of relationship.

These two icons of SCLs make a few things clear:

  1. They don’t care about your secularism. That is your fad, they are not fighting for it.
  2. They will fight their battel with Islamic supremacist slogans, if you don’t like it, leave them alone.
  3. Together with this they will also wish digging grave of Hindutva, Brahmanism, Manuvad, etc. Therefore, Islamic supremacy is fine, but Hindutva and Brahmanism are not.

This is not an argument in defence of Hindutva or Bharmanism, what ever they might mean; this is an argument against all religious assertions in a protest that is supposed to be to protect secularism. “Jai Shri Ram” and “Har Har Mahadev” will be as objectionable in such protests as “Allah hu Akbar” and “La ilaha illallah”.

And those who want to chant slogans against ills in the Hinduism should imagine chanting the parallel slogans replacing “Hindutva” etc. with “Islamism”, “Mullavad”, “Tushtikaran”, etc. All hell will break loose.

Let’s understand that tilted secularism is weak secularism, and will never be able to stand on its feet. Hindu-fundamentalism is increasing and needs to be defeated. But Islamic fundamentalism also needs to be defeated. SCLs acceptance of Islamic fundamentalism (in the form of Islamic Exceptionalism) will feed Hindu-fundamentalism, and both will grow.

********

10th January 2020

 

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

Reflection on some slogans-1

January 8, 2020

Rohit Dhankar

Protests against Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 (CAA) and possibility of National Register of Citizens (NRC) are wide spread across the nation. The CAA has passed through a democratic procedure by a democratically elected government. NRC at the moment is ambiguously understood issue with claims and counter claims regarding it being already initiated and not initiated as well as its criteria. The people of a democracy always have a right to peaceful protest, and Indian citizens are using that with vigor. All mass protests use variety of slogans to express their core concerns and ideas. The current protests also use many slogans. In this piece I am trying to reflect on a few of such slogans.

In the current protests two general formats of slogans are very popular. They can be named as “azadi” format and “kabr khudegi” format. The azadi format has two sub-formats: one, azadi (freedom) from format. This runs like “X se azadi”. A lead protester should “X se” and the body of protesters shout “azadi”. Examples; Lead: “Manu-vad se”, Protesters: “azadi”. Another sub-format of the azadi slogans spells who wants azadi. The lead shouts “X mange”, supporters should “azadi”. Example; Lead: “Dalit mange”, Supporters: “azadi”. Here we will discuss only the first sub-format. That is: “X se”, “azadi”.

Second popular format is “X ki kabr khudegi, Y ki dharti par”. Here the lead shouts “X ki kabr khudegi”, Supporters shout “Y ki dharti/chhaati par”. Example; Lead: “Jati-vad ki kabr khudegi”, Supporters: “Rajasthan ki dharti par”.

Both these formats are very powerful and versatile. Versatility comes from naming all the ills that one wants to oppose or remove one by one in the same format. Power comes from the speed and vigor with which these slogans are shouted. An experienced lead-protester (we have even professionals) can slowly raise the emotions and can take it to a frenzy leaving mind far behind. The supporters become simple followers without thinking and feel a swell of emotions which gives a high of feeling virtuous. The slogans are not only used to raise temporary frenzy, but also create permanent indoctrination when someone is subjected to this treatment repeatedly.

In this background, we will examine some of the slogans used in these and many other protests these days. We will not discuss the formats anymore, but the content of slogans. A tentative list of slogans to be examined:

  1. “Hindutva ki kabr khudegi, Dilli ki dharti par”. (“Dilli” is just a place-holder, one can change it with AMU, JNU, or any other place.)
  2. “Brahmanism ki kabr khudegi, Dilli ki dharti par”
  3. “Manu-vad ki kabr khudegi, Dilli ki dharti par”
  4. “Jati-vad ki kabr khudegi, Dilli ki dharti par”
  5. “Sangh-vad ki kabr khudegi, Dilli ki dharti par”
  6. “RSS ki kabr khudegi, Dilli ki dharti par”
  7. “Bahusankhya-vad ki kabr khudegi, Dilli ki dharti par”

Of course, there are many more slogans, some of them are used only in the ‘azadi-format’, some used in both formats. But we will focus only on the above listed ones.

First, let’s note that all these slogans mention something that is associated with Hinduism. Not necessarily with the philosophy and ideals of Hinduism, but as practice of Hinduism is perceived by the so-called-liberals (SCLs).

Second, all that is mentioned in the slogans are supposed to be the evils of Hinduism. Therefore, it is assumed that no sane democrat may have any objection in digging the graves of these evils of Hinduism. Actually, this can be seen as retrieving a more benevolent form of Hinduism by purifying it of these ills. Therefore, before going any further let’s have a look at the meaning of the terms used here.

Hindutva: everyone considers Savarkar as the inventor of Hindutva, which is considered a political ideology. But this idea and ideology is also articulated and rearticulated by others. Particularly RSS leaders. Right from Golwalkar to Mohan Bhagawat. Savarkar, Golwalkar and Bhagwat (and others) all deny that “Hindu” means a religion, according to all of them the term Hindu has got nothing to do with what God or gods you worship and how you worship them. What your imagination of the fruits of that worship has no connection with being Hindu. To Savarkar anyone who is born in India, who considers India as the land of her/his forefathers (matri-bhoomi), and who considers India as the land of his/her heroes and holy people and respects its culture (punya-bhoomi) is a Hindu. Irrespective of what and how s/he worships for what purposes. But all said and done, Savarkar definitely does not consider Muslims as Hindus and Savarkar’s Hindutva is divisive as well as very suspicious of Muslims. Golwalker to me seems to be a step ahead and thinks of them as divisive force in the country and often loyal to Pakistan. In a more recent articulation Bhagwat seems to be attempting to be more inclusive; as reported by The Economic Times, 18th September 2018, he says: ‘Hindu Rashtra’ does not mean it has no place for Muslims as this concept is inclusive of all faiths and religions. “The Sangh works towards universal brotherhood and the cardinal principle of this brotherhood is unity in diversity. This thought comes from our culture, which the world calls Hindutva. That’s why we call it a Hindu Rashtra,” he said. Asserting that the RSS’ philosophy is to take everyone along, he said, “Hindu Rashtra doesn’t mean there’s no place for Muslims. The day it is said so, it won’t be Hindutva any more. Hindutva talks about Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam.”

But yes, there could be, and is, a justified suspicion of this ideology. Therefore, one may consider a wish to dig Hindutva’s grave a progressive and secular slogan. But why in a protest against CAA and NRC? We will come to this question a little later.

Brahmanism: Encyclopedia Britannica defines Brahmanism as an “ancient Indian religious tradition that emerged from the earlier Vedic religion. In the early 1st millennium bce, Brahmanism emphasized the rites performed by, and the status of, the Brahman, or priestly, class as well as speculation about brahman (the Absolute reality) as theorized in the Upanishads (speculative philosophical texts that are considered to be part of the Vedas, or scriptures). In contrast, the form of Hinduism that emerged after the mid-1st millennium bce stressed devotion (bhakti) to particular deities such as Shiva and Vishnu.

During the 19th century, the first Western scholars of religion to study Brahmanism employed the term in reference to both the predominant position of the Brahmans and the importance given to brahman (the Sanskrit terms corresponding to Brahman and brahman are etymologically linked). Those and subsequent scholars depicted Brahmanism either as a historical stage in Hinduism’s evolution or as a distinct religious tradition. However, among practicing Hindus, especially within India, Brahmanism is generally viewed as a part of their tradition rather than as a separate religion.”

To me it sounds like faith of many Hindus today. The distinction between Brahmanism and Hinduism does not seem to be very clear. Kancha Ilahiya declares on the authority of Dr. Ambedkar that “Hindutva is nothing but Brahmanism. And whether you call it Hindutva or Arya Dharma or Sanatan Dharma or Hinduism, Brahmanism has no organic link with Dalit-Bahujan life, world-views, rituals and even politics”. Thus, Brahmanism starts looking like a term devised to deride Hinduism; to be used as a fig-leaf of defence when someone objects for insult to majority religion. The most of the slogan shouting protesters will easily accept Ilahiya’s authority I think.

Which means that digging grave for Hinduism is fine. Since Hinduism does have so many evils in it, let’s accept this premise for the sake of argument.

Manu-vad: Manu-vad is even more deserving of pushing into grave than Brahmanism and Hindutva. It directly preaches lower position of women and shudras in the society. Completely against equality. Therefore, a perfectly deserving candidate to push into the grave.

Jati-vad: no need to discuss. We don’t need casteism, therefore, fine to dig its grave. Though many Hindus may still be clinging to some or other form of Jati-vad. Often, I think the Dalits and OBCs are more attached to jati-vad in present day India than the higher castes. But let that be as it is.

Sangh-vad and RSS: They are the same thing. Rashtriya Swayam Sevaksangh (RSS) is seen as a Hindu nationalist body which is against Muslims and secularism. It is also considered the parent body of BJP which is directing its politics. Therefore, lets accept the wish to dig its grave a legitimate wish in a protest that is ostensibly to protect secularism and equality of Indian citizens.

On the basis of very scanty indications above, one may understand Hindutva, Sangh-vad and RSS as political ideology guiding BJP’s push for CAA and NRC. And therefore, it may be considered legitimate to raise slogans against them in protest against the same. But why include Brahmanism, jati-vad and Manu-vad? What these three have to do with CAA and NRC?

The clue may be found in the 7th slogan listed above. That is “Bahusankhya-vad ki kabr …”. The whole agenda is seen as majoritarianism. The majority community has put the BJP in power. Majority community is Hindu. Hinduism in practice has been characterised by Brahmanism, jati-vad and Manu-vad. Therefore, through these slogans some recognised evils of Hinduism are recounted, even if they are not directly involved in the present context. This is to create atmosphere against those who put such a divisive party in power.

These slogans were shouted in many large gatherings in the course of current protests with the kind of frenzy I have claimed above, to take supporters on an emotional and virtuous high, leaving their reason far behind. And therefore, may be used as a device for mass indoctrination against the target ideology and community supporting it. Above I have argued that all these are political and social evils of the majority religion in the country. Since they are ‘evils’, wishing to dig their grave even if not directly relevant to the issue should be fine. That seems to be the argument.

I hope readers of this long and dry piece agree with the above argument. Still request all to express their opinion.

Part 2 of this article will be posted tomorrow (as this has become too long) with reflection on some more slogans.

*******

8th January 2020

 

 

 

 

 

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

Masked Goons in JNU

January 6, 2020

Rohit Dhankar

Students and teachers were attacked on 5th January 2020 in JNU by masked goons armed with sticks, iron rods and stones. The violence is condemnable in the strongest possible terms and is completely unacceptable. The ABVP and Left Groups of JNU are blaming each other for the violence. Reposts in three national newspapers (The Hindu, The Indian Express and The Pioneer) indicate clearly that the goons most probably belonged to ABVP and the police if not in connivance was certainly soft on them. The police can hardly afford to be soft on violence of this scale and intensity without some kind of indication from the government.

If the government and police cannot nab the goons and place credible evidence of their identity and involvement before the nation soon enough then either the state is dangerously incompetent or it is all its own doing. In both the cases India has elected a very bad lot to govern itself. The statements from police that some miscreants were involved, of whose identity they don’t know is not satisfactory. It is not reasonable to assume that the Indian state can not find out who these people were. Therefore, if no one is caught for this act of violence then it would be very reasonable to assume that it was with government and police encouragement.

A government—in case it is true—which can use goons to break protests, be they justified or unjustified, be they peaceful or violent; will spell disaster for the country and can not be tolerated. Therefore, it is imperative for the government to catch the culprits if it wants to absolve itself of the charges levelled at it.

The second point in this episode is something that did not attract much attention. The Pioneer notes that “[M]inor clashes were reported on Friday when in an attempt to restrict students from getting registered for new semester, some students allegedly barged into the room used to provide power to Wi-Fi connection to entire campus and shut it down. The protesting students claimed that stopping the registration process was essential as the registration was being done as per hiked fee structure.” The registrar also claims in his press note: “From 1 January 2020, the Winter semester registration was going on smoothly. However, on 3rd January, a group of students opposing the registration process entered the Communication and Information Services (CIS) premises, covering their faces with masks and forcibly evicted the technical staff and made the servers disfunctional. This led to the discontinuation of the registration process on 3rd January. A police complaint was filed immediately identifying the students. However, on 4th January morning, the technical staff again made the CIS functional. Immediately, thousands of students started registering by paying the new hostel room rent. A group of students who are bent upon stopping the registration process, again entered the CIS premises with a criminal intent to make the servers disfunclional. They damaged the power supplies, broke the optical fibres and made the servers disfunctional again on 4th January around 1 PM disrupting the registration process. A police complaint was again filed against the miscreants. For the past few days, the group of agitating students also closed the buildings of some Schools preventing the non-agitating students, staff and the faculty members. On 5th January, when the students who have registered in the winter semester wanted to enter these school buildings, they were physically prevented by the agitating students. Since the 5th January afternoon, the campus has witnessed scuffles at the Schools as well as inside the hostel premises between the groups of students who wanted to stop the registration and those who wanted to register and continue their studies. Around 4.30 PM, a group of students, who are against the registration process moved aggressively from the front of the admin block and reached the hostels. The administration immediatedly contacted the Police to come quickly and maintain law and order on the campus. However, by the time police came, the students who are for the registration were beaten up by a group of agitating students opposting the registration. Some masked miscreants also entered the Periyar hostel rooms and attacked the students with sticks and rods. Some of the security guards doing duties at these places were also badly injured. During the last couple of weeks, these agitating students also vandalized the admin block and ransacked the office of the Vice Chancellor for which a few police complaints were filed. It is unfortunate that a group of students with their violent means of protests are preventing thousands of non-agitating students from pursuing their academic activities.”

If what The Pioneer and the JNU Registrar write be true then the acts of agitating students are also seriously condemnable. They certainly have the right to agitate and not to register for next semester at hiked fees; but have no right to forcibly stop those who want to pay the fee and want to register. Agitations and protests are to communicate their dissatisfaction and reasons thereof to the government and the larger public. Through these means one wants to persuade and convince others; it is not a license to force others to do what protesters want. Therefore, forcibly stopping others is not acceptable. How ever this unacceptable act of protesting students—in case it is true—does not justify the attack on them.

Another point in this episode is the statements of political leaders. Particularly Rahul Gandhi and D Raja. They are absolutely right in condemning the act of violence and also in suspecting the police and the government connivance in this. But they said not a word about the condemnable behaviour of agitating students in vandalising the communication system and forcibly stopping other students from registering. One may argue that they did not believe that the agitating students indulged in aforementioned acts. In that case they should at least have denied such false allegation coming from the registrar.

The language Mr. Rahul Gandhi and Mr. D. Raja use is completely non-communicative to the large sections of Indian public and is completely stultified. If they want to defeat BJP by their slogan of fascism then they will have to wait for 50 years. Their stock characterisation of anything wrong happening which they want to blame on the government is “fascism”. How many Indians who may read their statements are likely to understand what they are saying? How many of their own followers can actually distinguish Fascism from Communism (which have so much in common) and Fascism from Indira Gandhi’s congress? To me their pronouncements seem completely worn out clichés. In comparison Prinyanka Gandhi Wadra seems to be learning a language which may be able to communicate some meaning to people someday.

*******

6th January 2020

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

Wishing Happy New Year to all

January 1, 2020

सभी को नव वर्ष की शुभ कामनाएँ

रोहित धनकर

[This is written in both Hindi and English. No attention is paid to accurate translation. Roughly the same ideas are expressed. Written in a hurry, pay attention to ideas and ignore language and grammar.]

इस नए साल में हम बेहद ऊग्र वैचारिक खींचातान के  साथ प्रवेश कर रहे हैं। लोक के दिमाग में उतनी ही धुन्ध है जितनी उत्तर भारत के बड़े इलाकों में। तीन कट्टर विचार-धाराएँ देश को दो अशुभ दिशाओं में खींच रही हैं। एक विचार धारा इस देश को पांथिक-राष्ट्र नहीं तो पंथ विशेष को अधिक महत्व देने वाला राष्ट्र जरूर बनाना चाहती है। बाकी दो एक साथ मिलकर देश में व्यवस्था के हर प्रयत्न को एक समुदाय विशेष के साथ अन्याय के रूप में प्रस्तुत करके अव्यवस्था और गैर-बराबरी को दूसरी दिशा में मोड़ना चाहती हैं। तीनों कट्टर विचार-धाराओं के और दोनों धड़ों के अपने-अपने निहित स्वार्थ और अपने-अपने अजेंडा हैं। पर साथ ही बहुत बड़ा तबका दोनों के नेताओं द्वारा प्रसारित गलत-तथ्यों और गलत व्याख्याओं पर विश्वास भी करता है।

We are entering this new year with violent ideological struggle. The large areas of north India are under dense fog, with very limited visibility; which seems to symbolise the state of mind of the Indian citizenry at the moment. Presently three bigoted ideologies are pulling India in two wrong direction. One of these ideologies wants to make India into a country which gives more importance to one particular religion; even if it does not go as fat as to make it a theological state. The remaining too are cooperating to misinterpret every step taken to solve problems long standing problems to prove that a particular community is targeted. This creates a different kind of inequality in the opposite direction of the first one. All three bigoted ideologies and both the groups have their own vested interests and agendas. But at the same time a large number of citizens also believe in the propaganda spearheaded by the leaders of the three ideologies. This propaganda involves falsehood and deliberately wrong interpretations as well.

ऐसी स्थिति में नए साल में इस देश को सौहार्द्र की जरूरत है, जो सब की बात को शांति से सुनने-समझने की मति देता है। और निहित स्वार्थों की घोषणा से पहले अभिव्यक्त मत के अर्थ और तर्क को समझने की कोशिश करता है।

In such a situation this country needs good-wishes for all in every single heart, because good-wishes for all may help in listening to all with calmness and pay attention required to understand their worries and arguments. This also helps in attempting to understand the meaning and arguments of opponents before jumping onto their vested interests.

निष्पक्षता की जरूरत है जो पक्ष-विपक्ष को दोस्ती-दुश्मनी नहीं विवेक के आधार पर जाँचने की क्षमता देती है।

We need fairness which gives us capability to examine all views on the basis of religion and not on the basis of friendship and animosity.

विवेक की जरूरत है जो करुणा और क्रोध दोनों के पार जा कर केवल सत्य और नैतिक दृष्टि से उचित को स्वीकार करने की हिम्मत दिखा सके।

We need reason which has the capability to beyond compassion and anger; which is capable of showing courage to accept only the truth and morally good.

दृढ़ता की जरूरत है जो व्यक्तिगत आक्रमण की परवाह किए बिना काले को काला और सफ़ेद के सफ़ेद कहने का साहस देती है।

We need strength which helps in disregarding personal attacks and always call a spade a spade.

सूक्ष्म दृष्टि की जरूरत है जो लोकतन्त्र और धर्म-निरपेक्षता का लबादा पहने कट्टर-धार्मिक उन्मादियों को पहचान सके।

We need fine judgment which may help us recognise religious bigots masquerading as supporters of democracy and secularism.

इस देश का भविष्य भली-भली बातों पर नहीं, सत्य और विवेक की आंच झेलपाने की ताकत कर निर्भर है।

The future of this country depends on capability to face the heat of truth and reason; and not on goody-goody talk.

नव वर्ष के लिए मेरी कमाना है:

हर भारतीय का स्वविवेक पूर्णतया सत्यभिमुख हो,

हर भारतीय में सत्य से बिना पलक झपकाए आँख मिलाने का साहस हो,

हर भारतीय में अपने विरोधी की बात को समझने की सद्बुद्धि हो।

Therefore, my wishes for this country are:

May every Indian have his own reason completely focused on the truth,

May every Indian have the courage direct an unblinking gaze into the eyes of the truth,

May every Indian have good sense of listening and understanding his opponent.

*******

1 जनवरी 2020

 

 

 

 

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

Dialogue 2: With Prof. Shailaja Menon

December 21, 2019

Rohit Dhankar

[This one has moved far away from the CAA and NRC. It is about one particular kind of fallacy rampantly used these days. May not be of much interest generally. Also has become rather detailed at places. I am putting it here only because Shailaja raised these points publicly and they have a bearing on my ways of thinking.]

This is not a face to face dialogue. Shailaja wrote the whole text which I have parsed against her name as a single comment. I have parsed it for the purpose of responding properly, and to avoid ambiguity. Her comment was on my blog titled “Rampant ad hominem and dogmatic warriors”.

Shailaja: Rohitji, as you know, Ad Hominem argumentation would be considered valid in certain traditions, such as Marxism, contemporary sociology of knowledge, etc, where it is proposed that the truth and falsity of ideas cannot be evaluated independently of the material/ideological positioning of the person advancing the argument.

Rohit: (a) Apologies for my ignorance Shailaja ji, but would like to have some references where Marxism and Contemporary Sociology of Knowledge where ad hominem is admissible.  If the references also include some good examples, it will help me.

(b) Difficult to accept that “the truth and falsity of ideas cannot be evaluated independently of the material/ ideological positioning of the person advancing the argument”. A person can give a statement, and also can advance an argument. Arguments depend on premises, which are statements.

See the following examples of statements:

One: 2+2=4

Two: Moon is nearer to earth in comparison to Mars.

Three: Untouchability still persists in many rural parts of Rajasthan.

Four: Aurangzeb reintroduced jaziah which was abolished by Akbar.

Five: “Do not do to others what you do not want to be done to you” is a moral maxim. (Being a moral maxim is simply the characterisation of the maxim in the sense of indicating its domain; and does not mean its acceptance by anyone.)

Six: Subtility of metaphor is one of the important criteria in deciding quality of a poem.

Seven: All above statements are true or false irrespective of the material and ideological position of who makes them.

Using ad hominem to refute or challenge these statement would mean something like: (Say they are all made by X, I want to refute statement four above) X has always been extremely critical of Aurangzeb, therefore, Aurangzeb did not introduce jaziah. Will it cut any ice?

I don’t think the truth of any of the above statements will be affected by who is making them.

Now see the following arguments:

One: (a) If Shailaja donates 10% of her income for charity, and (b) Her income is 5,00,000 rupees per month, then (c) She donates 50,000 rupees per month.

Two: (a) If Rohit smokes 20 cigarettes a day, (b) if it is true that risk of lung cancer among 20-per day smokers is 10% higher than non-smokers; and (c) Shailaja is a non-smoker; then (d) all other things being equal, Rohit’s risk of lung cancer is 10% higher than Shailaja.

Three: (a) If higher female education results in reduced birth rate irrespective of all other socio-economic-political and environmental conditions, and (b) Rajasthan wants to reduce birth rate, then (c) it is reasonable for Rajasthan to provide better opportunities for female education.

Four: (a) If Chandragupta Maurya married a Greek woman, (b) If Bindusara was son of that Greek woman and Chandragupta Maurya, and (c) if Ashok was biological son of Bindusara, then (d) Ashok also had Greek blood in his veins.

Five: (a) If Shailaja accepts the moral principle that hurting others is morally bad under all circumstances, and (b) Shailaja has hurt Bhootnath, then (c) Shailaja has violated her own principle.

Six: (a) If there are no criteria for considering poetry good or bad, then (b) Rohit Dhankar is as good a poet as Ramdhari Singh Dinkar.

Seven: (a) If the validity of all the above listed arguments is independent of the material/ideological position of who advanced them, then (b) it is valid to conclude that in very large part of rational conversation validity of arguments can be decided independent of the material and ideological positions of people who advance them.

If one analyses carefully all the statements and arguments listed above it becomes clear that they are true/false or valid/invalid irrespective of people who make them. Therefore, I do not accept what you said in this regard.

Furthermore, even if material/ideological position of the person is taken into account in some specific situations that does not necessarily mean indulging in ad hominem.

Shailaja: You are right that we should not, in public reasoning, refer ONLY to personal characteristics, irrespective of the points that a person is making. Nor, should we ideally attack the human being.

Rohit: Thanks for recognising this much. But I would insist personal characteristics of the person making argument are irrelevant to the merits of the argument.

Shailaja: However, I would argue that it is perfectly logical and rational to take into account who the person is, where they are coming from, in evaluating their arguments. Courts of law permit certain kinds of ad hominem argumentation, because the validity and necessity of it in human interactions is acknowledged.

Rohit: I would like to know such instances. I seriously doubt it. I can understand looking into a person’s character and past for judging the truth of his/her statement where no other grounds for verification or rejection are available. For example, a habitual liar who has appeared in a court as a false witness is likely to be unreliable, and may get rejected. Such a person if says that the he saw the accused hitting this person, the judge may reject his testimony. But this is a practical decision on the part of the judge to keep legal procedure reliable. And is concerned with the acceptability of his statement; not effecting the truth itself. I never said that ad hominem is not used to discredit or enhance credit of people in public discourse. It is used day in and day out, and is also effective. That does not mean that it affects the truth or untruth of the statements or validity/invalidity of arguments.

In the famous story of the shepherd boy and wolf the discredited poor boy lost his sheep because of the opinion formed of the boy based on past experience of the villagers. The truth of the loss of sheep was not affected by the judgment of the villagers on the boy’s statement (announcing the approaching wolf).

Fallacy is a term applicable to logic used in an argument. Arguments can be valid or invalid. Sound or unsound. They are not true or false. Statements are true or false. Imagine a well-known thief makes the following argument in front of the judge who knows his habits well:

Argument: (a) Sir, the defence lawyer admits that I was in Kolkata at 2 pm on 21st Dec 2019. (b) he also admits that the bank theft happened in Delhi between 2 pm and 4 pm. On 21st Dec 2019. (c) there is no way a person can reach Delhi from Kolkata in less than two hours. Therefore, (d) Sir, he is accusing me falsely.

Shall this argument become invalid due to the recognised fact that the maker is a well-known thief? And that even the judge knows it? I see no way any one can claim that this is an invalid argument.

Shailaja: Potential employers do it, too, because human nature has some predictability; by reviewing a person’s past actions and stances, you can predict (with some margin for error) what they are LIKELY to do in the future.

Rohit: May be for the same reason and in the same sense to ascertain reliability. That is not use of ad hominem argument. That is judging character.

Shailaja: Let me give you examples of bad and reasonable ad hominem arguments, in my opinion.

  1. Bad: I reject Rohitji’s arguments because I feel he’s a stubborn man. Rohit: yes, it is bad and ad hominem.
  2. Reasonable: I question some of Rohitji’s arguments because I know that he comes from a tradition of analytical philosophy that ignores context and minutely parses narrow pieces of the whole.

In the latter case, Rohitji’s background and training are legitimate sources of information for me to consider in terms of evaluating his arguments.

Rohit: Perfectly correct. Only that you do not reject Rohit’s argument because he comes from analytical philosophy training. You simply become alert and examine his arguments more closely because of this view. The validity of his arguments remains unaffected by your judgment of Rohit. It will be revealed to you only on the basis of other criteria used to ascertain validity of his arguments.

*****

21st December 2019

 

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

विवेकहीन आक्रामक कट्टर योद्धाओं का जमाना

December 20, 2019

रोहित धनकर

[इस ब्लॉग में मैं अपने कल के अङ्ग्रेज़ी के ब्लॉग “Rampant ad hominem and dogmatic warriors” में कही बात को ही हिन्दी में कह रहा हूँ। दोनो आलेख मैंने ही लिखे हैं। अतः, हू-ब-हू अनुवाद की जरूरत नहीं समझता।]

इस वक़्त भारत एक बहुत मुश्किल दौर से गुजर रहा है, शायद अपने संवैधानिक इतिहास के सबसे मुश्किल दौर से। राजनैतिक विचार धाराओं के बहुत आक्रामक संघर्ष के कारण समाज बहुत उद्वेलित है और नागरिक लगातार दो धड़ों में बंटते जा रहे हैं। रोज लोकतन्त्र और धर्मनिरपेक्षता पर खतरे का डर फैल रहा है।

धर्मनिरपेक्षता लोकतन्त्र के लिए जरूरी है। न तो कोई भी देश बिना धर्मनिरपेक्षता के लोकतन्त्र हो सकता है, नाही कोई लोकतन्त्र धर्म-राज्य या फिरकापरस्त हो सकता है। क्यों कि लोकतन्त्र में व्यक्ति का महत्व स्वीकारना मूल मंत्र होता है। व्यक्ति स्वतन्त्रता इस का आधार होती है। और सब नागरिकों का हित समान समान होता है। अतः, राज्य अपनी नीतियों में धर्म के आधार पर भेद नहीं कर सकता। भेद करने पर इन सिद्धांतों का विरोध होगा। अतः वह लोकतन्त्र नहीं रहेगा।

लोकतन्त्र की गुणवत्ता उसके नागरिकों की गुणवत्ता पर निर्भर करती है। लोकतन्त्र के नागरिकों की पहली जरूरत स्पष्ट और विवेकशील चिंतन और नए विचारों को समझने की काबिलियत होती है। यह एक सुशिक्षित व्यक्ति की पहचान भी है। असपष्ट और विवेकहीन विचार करने वाले नागरिकों का लोकतन्त्र ना तो सुरक्षित रह सकता है नाही विकास कर सकता है। क्यों की इन्हें कोई भी दुर्बुद्धी नेता या प्रसिद्ध व्यक्ति आज के शक्तिशाली संचार माध्यमों के उपयोग से बहका सकता है। लोकतन्त्र में नागरिक की प्रभाविता उसकी साफ समझ और सत्या-सत्य के निर्णय की बौद्धिक ईमानदारी पर निर्भर करती है। उस में तथ्य और कुप्रचार में फर्क करपाने की समझ होनी चाहिए। उस में मतांधता और पूर्वाग्रह को नकारने की सामर्थ्य होनी चाहिए; और भेड़-चाल के विरुद्ध खड़े होने की सामर्थ्य होनी चाहिए।

साफ विचार की काबिलियत के साथ ही लोकतन्त्र विचार और अभिव्यक्ती की स्वतन्त्रता की भी मांग करता है। बिना अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतन्त्रता के संवाद संभव नहीं है और बिना संवाद के विवेक आधारित सहमती संभव नहीं है। मत-भेदों और हितों की टकराहट को दूर करने के लिए लोकतन्त्र में विवेक आधारित सहमति के अलावा कोई तरीका नहीं होता। अतः अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतन्त्रता के बिना लोकतन्त्र नहीं चल सकता।

लोकतन्त्र का सचेत नागरिक अपनी बात साफ और स्त्यरूप में निडर हो कर तो कहता ही है; वह दूसरे की बात भी पूरी शांति और ध्यान से सुन कर वेवेक-सम्मत जवाब देता है। जो अपने से भिन्न विचारों को शांति से सुनने और समझने की काबिलियत नहीं रखता वह कभी भी विवेकशील और स्पष्ट चिंतन नहीं कर सकता। ऐसे नागरिक का शोर-शराबा ना तो लोकतन्त्र की रक्षा करता है ना ही किसी लोकतान्त्रिक मूल्य की।

आम तौर पर जो लोग अपने विचारों के विरुद्ध विचार और तर्क सुनकर गुस्सा होते हैं उन्होने कुछ विचार और विश्वास बिना समझे और बिना उनके लिए उचित तर्कों/आधारों के स्वीकार कर लिए होते हैं। बहुत बार ऐसे लोग किसी गुरु, विचारक, प्रसिद्ध बुद्धिजीवी या यहाँ तक की खोखले सेलेब्रिटी तक का अनुकरण कर रहे होते हैं। अपने विचार के तर्कसहित विरोधिविचार से सामना होने पर ऐसे लोग असुरक्षित महसूस करते हैं, क्यों की वे नातो स्वयं के विचार को ठीक से समझते हैं, ना ही उस के लिए प्रमाण या तर्क दे सकते हैं। अतः, अपने बचाव के लिए ये लोग विचार से ध्यान हटा कर विचार रखने वाले हमला कर देते हैं। यह बहुत व्यापक स्तर पर काम में लिया जाने वाला तर्क-दोष है। और आज कल तो इसका बहुत ही ज्यादा चलन हो गया है। इस तर्कदोष का लेटिन भाषा में नाम एड होमिनेम है।

एड होमिनेम के कुछ उदाहरण नीचे दिये हैं:

“कुछ लोग बात कर रह थे। राम और उसके दोस्तों की दृढ़ मान्यता थी कि धरती घनाकार है। कृष्ण के बहुत हैरानी हुई।

उसने कहा “धरती यदि घनाकार है तो समुद्र से आते हुए जहाज को किनारे से देखने पर पहले मस्तूल और फिर बाद में पूरा जहाज क्यों दिखता है? चंद्र ग्रहण के समय चाँद पर धरती की छाया गोल क्यों दिखती है? मेरे विचार से धरती गोलाकार होनी चाहिए।

राम: तुम्हें भाषा नहीं आती। तुमने “बाद में” को “बद में” बोला है।

कृष्ण: ठीक है। तुम मेरी बात तो समझ गए हो। तो यह बताओ मेरे तर्क में क्या दोष है?

राम: तुम घनाभ चीजों को पसंद नहीं करते, इस लिए ऐसा कह रहे हो।

कृष्ण: बढ़िया। अब ये बताओ मेरी बात में गलती क्या है?

राम2: हमें तुम्हारा इतिहास भी देखना पड़ेगा, तुमने चंद को भी गोल कहा था।

कृष्ण: ठीक। अब मेरे धरती संबंधी तर्क में गलती बताओ।

राम3: तुम्हारी बुद्धि बीमार हो गई है।

कृष्ण: धन्यवाद। पर मेरे तर्क में दोष बताओ।

राम4: हे ईश्वर, यह कह रहा है कि धरती गोल है! घ्रणित, अति घ्रणित!!

आज कल नागतिकता संशोधन विधेयक और राष्ट्रीय नागरिकता रजिस्टर पर चल रही बहस में बहुत ज्यादा लोग उपरोक्त तरीके से बात कर रहे हैं। ऐसा नहीं है की अच्छी और उचित प्रकार की बहस नहीं चल रही। वह भी खूब चल रही है और उस से लोकतान्त्रिक प्रक्रिया मजबूत भी हो रही है। क्यों की तर्कों में स्पष्टता आ रही है और विचारों की विभिन्न परतों का विश्लेषण हो रहा है।

पर दूसरी तरफ ऊपर वर्णित किश्म के लोग भी लोकतन्त्र और धर्मनिरपेक्षता के योद्धा बने घूम रहे हैं। इन में से अधिकतर योद्धा ठीक से पढ़कर कर समझने की काबिलियत नहीं रखते, तर्क की समझ शून्य है, अपने अलावा सब विचारों के लिए एकदम बंद दिमाग हैं। बस अपने गुरुओं से सुनी बातें दोहरा रहे हैं और समझते हैं की बहुत बड़ा काम कर रहे हैं। पहले सिर्फ संघ के पास ऐसे बंद-दिमाग योद्धा थे; अब दोनों तरफ इनकी फौजें हैं।

इन लोगों ने कुछ समाज में सराहना पाने वाले विचार आत्मसात कर लिए हैं, कुछ अच्छे समझे जाने वाले विश्वास बना लिए हैं। पर उनके मर्म को समझे बिना और उनके पीछे विवेक के आधार को समझे बिना उन्हें आत्मसात किया है। अब क्यों कि ये विचार समाज में इतना मान पते हैं और जाने-माने बुद्धिजीवी इसी तरह की बातें अपने कारणों से बहुत ऊग्रता से रखते हैं। अतः इन पदाति सैनिकों को बल मिलता है। चूंकि ये तर्क कर नहीं सकते, तो क्रोध अभिव्यक्त करके और विपरीत विचार के लिए आग्रह करने वालों पर व्यक्तिगत आक्रमण करके अपने आप को उच्च नैतिक धरातल पर समझने लगते हैं। जब कि इनके आदर्श-लोग, जो इन विचारों का महत्व और इनके तर्क-कुतर्क समझते हैं, वे व्यक्तियों पर आक्रमण किए बिना अपनी बात रखते हैं।

ये पदाति-सैनिक यह नहीं समझते कि उदार लोकतन्त्र में अपने विरोधी की विचार अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतन्त्रता की रक्षा करना एक बहुत महत्वपूर्ण मूल्य है। एक विचार-शील नागरिक विरोधी को अपनी बात रखने देता है, बल्कि कोई और उस के इस अधिकार को बाधित करते हैं तो उसके अधिककर की रक्षा भी करता है; और तब सभ्य तरीके से सटीक आलोचना प्रस्तुत करता है। जब हम लोगों को उनके विचारों के लिए शर्मिंदा करने की कोशिश करके चुप कराना चाहते हैं या उन पर व्यक्तिगत आक्रमण करते हैं तब हम स्वयं हथियार डालचुके होते हैं।

नैतिक निर्णय किसी रटे-रटाये सिद्धान्त को मतान्ध लागू करना नहीं होता। कोई भी नैतिक समस्या तब तक नहीं उपजती जब तक एक ही परिस्थिति में दो महत्वपूर्ण नैतिक सिद्धांतों की टकराहट न हो। अतः, नैतिक निर्णय कम से कम दो सिद्धांतों में से किसी एक का विवेक-सम्मत चुनाव होता है। यह लकीर का फकीर होने से बहुत अलग चीज है। नैतिक निर्णय बहुत बार लकीर छोड़ कर नए पथ के निर्माण की मांग कर कराते हैं।

लोकतन्त्र, धर्मनिरपेक्षता, स्वतन्त्रता और समानता में समझ कर विश्वास रखने वाला कोई भी व्यक्ति किसी के विचार गलत हों तो भी व्यक्तिगत आक्रमण नहीं कर सकता। निसंदेह, गलत विचार की आलोचना की भी जरूरत होती है और उसे नकारने की भी। पर यह काम सभ्य तरीके से करना पड़ता है। जो विचार की आलोचना करके उसे नकारने का काम बिना व्यक्त पर आक्रमण किए नहीं कर सकता, वह लोक-संवाद के पहले सिद्धान्त से भी अपरिचित है।

******

20 दिसम्बर 2019

 

 

 

 

 

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

Rampant ad hominem and dogmatic warriors

December 20, 2019

Rohit Dhankar

Currently India is going thought a particularly difficult phase in its constitutional history. In the particularly vicious struggle between political ideologies, the society is in a turmoil and citizenry is getting polarised day by day. One hears every day that the very democracy is at stake. Or that secularism is in danger.

Secularism is an essential principle in a democracy. No democracy can ever be non-secular; or no non-secular state can ever be a democracy. Simply because democracy is premised on the worth of individual, freedom of individuals and wellbeing of each citizen is equally important in it. Discrimination by the state on the basis of religion of its citizens contradicts the above-mentioned principle; namely, wellbeing of each citizen is equally important.

The quality of democracy depends heavily on the quality of its citizens. “The first requisite in this connection is … the capacity for clear thinking and a receptivity to new ideas. …. which is the distinguishing mark of an educated mind. A democracy of people who can think only confusedly can neither make progress, nor even maintain itself, because it will always be open to the risk of being misled and exploited by demagogues who have within their reach today unprecedentedly powerful media of mass communication and propaganda. To be effective, a democratic citizen should have the understanding and the intellectual integrity to sift truth from falsehood, facts from propaganda and to reject the dangerous appeal of fanaticism and prejudice.”

Together with clear and independent thinking; democracy necessarily requires freedom of expression. Without freedom of expression a fair dialogue is not possible. Because rational persuasion is the only legitimate way to achieve agreement in a democracy when faced with divergent view points and conflicting interests. Without freedom of speech free and genuine dialogue is impossible, and thus rational persuasion does not get a chance.

A concerned citizen in democracy does not only speak his/her mind truly, clearly and fearlessly; but also listens to opposite views calmly, carefully and responds rationally. One who does not have a capability to listen to and understand the views of his/her opponent objectively can never be a critical and clear thinker, and his/her voluble spouting of views does not help democracy, nor saves any of the democratic values.

Usually, the people who can not listen to an argument against their views and become angry when faced with opposition have imbibed ideas without properly understanding and/or without having proper arguments to support them. They usually are aping some guru, ideologue, intellectual icon, or even vacuous celebrity. The lack of properly understood justification of their dearly and dogmatically held position makes them feel internally vulnerable when faced with well argued opposition. Since they are incapable of countering the argument, they become angry and attack the person who had committed the sin of presenting opposite idea, with arguments beyond their intellectual capability. This attack on the person, rather than countering the argument is a very wide spread logical fallacy, and is called ad hominem.

Some blatant examples of ad hominem can be as follows:

“Some people were talking. Ram and his friends believed very strongly that the earth is cuboid shaped. Krishna was surprised and said: “Well, if earth is cuboid then how come we see the mast of approaching ships from sea shore first, and the rest of the ship appears later? How come the shadow of the earth on the moon in lunar eclipse is round? It seems the earth is round in shape.”

Ram: You don’t know language. You pronounced “letter” for “later”.

Krishna: Ok. But you understood what I am saying. So, what is wrong with my argument?

Ram: And you don’t like cuboids, that’s why you are saying this.

Krishna: Fine, but what is wrong with my argument, as such?

Ram2: we have to look into your history, you also said moon is round.

Krishna: Ok, but what is wrong with my argument about the earth?

Ram3: You have a sick mind.

Krishna: Thanks. But what is wrong with what I am saying?

Ram4: Oh my God, he says earth is round. What abomination.

In the present-day CAA and NRC debate too many people are talking like this. That does not mean that there is no serious and genuine discussion going on. Yes, there is good and genuine debate as well. And that is helping the democratic processes. Layers of the issues and argumentation are being continuously unravelled.

On the other hand, people like illustrated above are also masquerading as defenders of democracy and secularism. Most such people cannot read properly, cannot understand an argument, are completely closed minded on important issues. Spout out what have listened from their masters, and think that they are doing great job. Initially, such mindless shouters were only with the Sangh Parivar. Now, both sides have such armies.

They may have imbibed some ideas, formed some beliefs which are widely appreciated in the society. But have imbibed them without rational analysis and understanding their true meaning and proper justification. Now, the views happen to be so wide spread in the society and the icons are so vehement on these ideas for their own agendas, these foot-soldiers who do not know how to argue feel virtuous and self-important in getting angry and attacking people who happen to question such them.

This brigade does not understand that in a liberal democracy defending your opponent’s freedom of expression is an important value. You allow, and even defend you opponents right to speak, and then critique it in civilised language. When we start attacking and attempting to shame people for their ideas we already have lost the ground.

Moral decisions are not about applying a principle dogmatically. There is no real moral dilemma that does not involve at the least two conflicting values in the same situation. Therefore, moral decision is about carefully arriving at a judgment regarding which value should get precedence. This is different from always following a rut. A moral judgment may demand abandoning the well-trodden path and creating a new trail.

Those who genuinely believe in democracy, secularism, freedom of speech and equality can not afford to attack people for their ideas however wrong they may be. Wrong ideas necessarily require analysis, resistance and should be discarded. But all through a civilised discussion. Those who can not criticise and discard an idea without attacking the person who expressed it, do not know even the first principle of public dialogue.

******

19th December 2019

 

 

 

 

 

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

CAB[1] and NRC

December 18, 2019

Rohit Dhankar

I have argued elsewhere[2] that CAB 2019 is not against secularism, does not make India a Hindu Rashtra, and not against any Indian citizen, including Muslims. But many people point out that together with National Register of Citizens (NRC) this can be used against Muslim citizens of India. What stand should one take in such a situation?

First, CAB does not include necessity of NRC, it stands alone. I read a statement somewhere “CAB is toothless without NRC”. This viewpoint comes from a mindset that assumes that CAB is designed to ‘punish’ or ‘harm’ someone, and by itself it cannot punish if ‘that someone is an Indian citizen’. According to such thinking it gets teeth only in combination with NRC.

I would like to point out that CAB may not have teeth (even if above assumption is accepted, for the sake or argument) without NRC, but it still can benefit lakhs of Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis and Christians by removing illegal migrant tag on them and allowing them to apply for citizenship. And as far as this much goes, it harms no existing Indian citizen. Thus, without NRC it is not fruitless. It may be ‘toothless’ because it is not designed to harm anyone, but to help some people.

The genuine and really serious problems arise when it is combined with NRC, we assume that the process of registration in NRC will be very difficult and that the government is going to behave in a mala fide manner with Muslims. We should remember that this combining is not inherent to CAB, it will become possible through the further actions of the government, if it does. NRC carried out in the whole country can only identify illegal migrants, but cannot confer legitimacy to apply for citizenship without CAB, nor can the exercise provide for fast-track citizenship. NRC done without CAB can declare the persecuted minorities illegal migrants, but can give no respite to Muslims. The opponents of CAB, in such a case may have the satisfaction of not allowing any benefits to the six communities mentioned in CAB, but can provide to benefit to Muslims who are illegal migrants. This is one-way dependence between CAB and NRC, not mutual.

As per the newspaper reports the NRC has been a mess in Assam. It put many Indian citizens through hardships and no one believes that its results are accurate. The Home Minister Mr. Amit Shah declared in the parliament that the exercise of NRC will cover the whole of the country. If the exercise is done in a manner similar to Assam then this might be genuinely alarming. This is a huge problem without explaining to the public (1) the procedure, (2) providing a guarantee of fairness, (3) assuring that it can be done without too much trouble to people. The government has not done all this, and its actions and pronouncements do not inspire confidence, at present.

As an example of recent pronouncements one can consider Prime Minister Modi’s statement in Dumka, Jharkhand election rally where he said that those who are involved in arson during anti-CAB protests can be recognised by their cloths. People are objecting to this remark, rightly so, but the full story Modi weaves in that speech is much more objectionable. He builds a very diabolical narrative from 33rd to 43rd minutes of this[3] video. First, he singles out congress for working only for the family. Then points out that while criticising BJP and Modi, they start criticising Bharat, and cross the “seema rekha”. Then he points out arsonists as Muslims through their cloths. With a stern face and warning tone reminds Congress that they are supporting these people, and the nation is watching. Claims that the BJP has saved the nation through CAB (desh ko bhi bachaliya hai), a hint that making more Muslims (illegal migrant Muslims) citizens is a serious danger to the country. And then reminds the audience what Pakistanis did in the England in their protest in front of Indian Embassy. Says congress is doing the same here. In this narrative, he is declaring protesters as aligning with Pakistan and antinational; without saying so much in words. Setting up a thought chain in the minds of the listeners and leaving it to take its own course to become antimuslim. This from a PM is very bad, and erodes confidence of people, makes “sabka vishwas” unbelievable. In a democracy people have a right to protest, though no right to violence can be granted. Still protest sometime get into such situations, associating this with a particular religious community with designs to harm India on the basis of cloths cannot be an innocent act, particularly when people from all communities are protesting. This is but one example, BJP functionaries provide many such examples, with repeated calls to send Muslims to Pakistan. All this raises apprehension, regarding NRC.

Still, I don’t think summarily rejecting NRC is a good Idea. If the citizenship register of a country is in mess, no one knows how many foreigners are living there, no one can identify them, then there could be many problems including issues of security. Resources in the hands of foreigners which could be used for harming the country and so on. I don’t see such a situation good for the citizens of the country irrespective of their religion.

If NRC is found to be necessary for the whole country it can be done only if a fair and efficient procedure can be assured. If the public cannot be taken in confidence regarding accurate, fair and reasonably achievable procedures, then NRC has to be abandoned. I have not seen the authentic procedure documents (did not get them), eligibility criteria and list of acceptable documents. There is an article on Wikipedia on this issue. The criteria and documents as per that article do not seem to be too difficult. For example, if the government says that if you have a passport or if your name is in the voters’ list before such and such date then that is good enough as a proof, I don’t think anyone should find it too difficult. But one cannot make Wikipedia article basis for an argument. On the other hand, if the procedure demands that I should produce the name of my grandfather in a voters’ list, and from there on prove ancestry right down to me, with correctly spelled names; then it might be a lot of trouble. And will be a huge problem for poorer sections of the society.

The fact is, we do not know presently what the nationwide procedure and eligibility is going to be. If someone has authentic information on this, I would like to know that. Therefore, before we allow our minds to swing in any direction, we should also know whether NRC can be started throughout the nation just by an order of the government. I do not think that at this moment, but am not sure. If that is not possible and a law is required; then one should wait for that law and decide to support or oppose it when it is available, rather than imagining things and start opposing CAB on the basis of a law which is not even there yet.

The argument I am making is: if the CAB by itself does not do any harm to any Indian citizen and if it passes the test of ‘reasonable difference’ in the supreme court; then we should consider it a case of positive discrimination to minorities in our neighbouring countries, and not against the principle of secularism. Because we do use the principle of positive discrimination on the basis of religion in our own country.

In such a case we may oppose the NRC but not the CAB. Even if the NRC procedure finally turnout to be such that it can be used to discriminate against Muslims citizens of India, we should oppose NRC tooth and nail, and reject it. I see no justification for opposing CAB in the name of NRC. If we oppose CAB in the name of NRC without first knowing about eligibility criteria in NRC, then we are not trying to defend the rights of Indian citizens but are arguing against the lakhs of illegal migrants from three neighbouring countries belonging the minorities there. And we are being unfair.

We know that sooner or later we have to find a solution to the problem of persecuted minorities from ABF already in India. Citizenship seems to be the most suitable solution. We also know that in spite of all the rhetoric the illegal migrant Bangladeshi Muslims cannot be sent back to Bangladesh. Even if the laws demand deportation, it is not practically possible.  Leaving them stateless and without citizenship for ever is neither possible, nor humane. Keeping them in detention camps for ever is also an impossibility. Therefore, India has to develop a long-term policy about gradual citizenship to these people. And that policy should be known to the public. Neither the strategy of denial of their existence or admitting reduced numbers followed by erstwhile governments is good for India, nor the hard attitude of throwing them out is possible. If the government had thought through all these issues before embarking on CAB they could have gained public confidence. Adequate planning to CAB, NRC and a plan for solving the problem of illegal migrants together would have been much more acceptable to the people.

******

18th December 2019

 

 

 

[1] Though CAB 2019 is passed by both the houses of parliament, I am not sure it has become an Act. If I am correct, it will become an Act when approved by the president and notified in the Gazette of India. But I am not sure on this, so will check.

[2] In my blog “Is Cab against secularism?”

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlo8QJBTa2E

 

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

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »