A dialogue with Prof. Shailaja Menon

December 16, 2019

Rohit Dhankar

[This post is a dialogue with a bleeding-heart liberal (by her own admission) friend. We are in habit of having such dialogues time and again. This one was going on FB and is related to my yesterday’s post “Is CAB against secularism?”. That is why posting it here.]

Rohit: (In response to a post by Prof. Bhupenrda Yadav) I am sorry for being politically incorrect but actually do not understand what is wrong in trying to identify illegal migrants from Bangladesh? Have not come across any cogent argument yet. I do understand the limitless harm caused by dubbing Indian citizens as Bangladeshi, but do not understand why CORRECT identification would be wrong?

Shailaja: What is the process that would be followed for CORRECT identification? Ask people to produce documents they may not have access to, run from center to center for days on end, give up earning a living wage on those days? How will you solve problem of lack of correct documentation?

Rohit: By your question should I understand that the OBJECTION is because of lack or impossibility of reliable and fair procedure, and not to the idea of identification itself? If, yes, then it is worthwhile to device or develop reliable and fair procedures.

If the objection is in principle to the idea itself, that need to be shorted out.

So, which one is your objection?

Shailaja: I object to this at multiple levels, in principle, and due to process. Unlike you, I am not comfortable saying humanitarian sentiments you appeal to should only kick in for religious persecution of a certain segment of the population. [The original response from Shailaja was one continuous statement. I am breaking it up into separate points that statement makes, and responding to them one by one.]

Rohit: I am not saying that humanitarian ‘sentiments’ (to me ‘principles’) should kick in only for religious persecution of a segment of population. I am saying for some practical reasons due to religious persecution being one of the major causes of the citizenship crisis of lakhs of people living in India, THIS PARTICULAR ACT is trying to take care of this issue. AND THAT taking such a route to solution is not necessarily morally and legally objectionable. Humanitarian concerns should address other problems as well, and with sensitivity. BUT THE SOLUTION MAY NOT BE THE SAME. ACTUALLY, THE SOLUTION SHOULD NOT BE THE SAME.

Shailaja: I am a bleeding-heart liberal.

Rohit: I too consider myself a liberal in spite of what others think these days. 😊 However, I am not bleeding heart. I try to be as hardnosed rationalist as far as possible, though often fail (unfortunately ☹).

Shailaja: My heart bleeds when I see people migrating for economic reasons, as well.

Rohit: I too have concern for them. But distinguish between someone trying to flee to save his daughter or faith or may be life; and someone moving on the basis of one’s own judgment for better livelihood. And equating the two is injustice to my mind, irrespective of their religions.

Shailaja: My heart bleeds when the Rohingyas are massacred, yes, it’s a complex history, but my heart doesn’t understand these subtle differences when it sees a large section of humanity in distress.

Rohit: I do not have a bleeding heart, and can not demand others to go by MY heart, they may have THEIR OWN hearts. So, I prefer having good reasons that all may understand. However, I have concern for miseries of large populations, and Rohingyas as well. But, do not want to be responsible for it. To me India’s role in this is limited to may be providing temporary shelter and help the concerned countries solve it with as much humanity as possible. I see absolutely no reason for extending speeded up citizenship to Rohingyas. I believe that when India is not legally or morally bound to extend a favour, it has its freedom to restrict it to whom it sees fit.

Shailaja: My heart does not understand the idea of a non porous national border – acorss the world humans have and are migrating across national borders seeking to flee various kinds of atrocities; my heart is not able to sort them out into neat logical categories and behave in a humanitarian way towards one group, and in an indifferent way towards another.

Rohit: My mind understands and is forced to accept national borders; not completely non-porous, but reasonably firm and clear. My mind does not allow me to assume that justice (in all respects) to human life is possible without reasonably defined political formation at the current state of human intellectual and moral development. Such formations have political, legal, and administrative systems. They have economies, cultures, traditions, and ways of functioning. They make human cooperation and sharing the fruits of that cooperation in a just manner possible. I agree that they must be open minded and magnanimous in sharing whatever goods they have managed to create; but that can be done only in a reasonable manner; can not be considered free for all. Therefore, migration across the borders has to be regulated through legal systems. Otherwise, the necessary political and economic system will be destroyed. That reasonableness demands categorising the problems and devising appropriate solutions for each, rather than lumping everything together.

Shailaja: Most of all, Rohitji, my heart does not believe in punishing grandchildren of poor, illiterate muslims for what the elite counterparts of their grandparents chose – your grandparents chose two nations, we remember that, no fast track for you! The sins of the forefathers!

Rohit: My mind Shailaja ji, does not allow me to forget or disregard the causes and reasons advanced for partition; the methods used and resultant loss of human lives and property. The jolt to a developing culture and set-back to a polity. Imagining that those who disagree want to punish grandchildren for the wrong decisions of their grandparents is somewhat insulting to their intellect or moral compass. There could be reasons not motivated by a desire to punish, but based on better grounds.

But, one, I do not know why I should not consider the countries created in this manner at par with hundreds of other countries in the world as far as citizenship of those for whom these countries were created goes. And two, how can I ignore the trauma faced buy those who did not want such division. But accepted with heavy heart once it became inevitable. The division was of population, resources, kind of preferred laws and political formation. Thinking only of the grandchildren of those who wanted partition seems to be one sided to me. What about the legitimate issues, I am not talking of feelings, such open policy may create for the many more grandchildren of those who did not want partition? To be fair means thinking for all.

One needs to look into history of various failed pacts as well. Because of all this: why should one not consider them at par with foreigners coming to India from anywhere in the world? Why should one feel responsible in the same way as the victims of failed pacts and continuing atrocities simply because of their faith? I often wonder why hearts of some of my compatriots bleed only for one section of people who have come to India; and there is no mention at all of atrocities and hardships of those who do not belong to that section? Why their being minorities in other countries is ignored? Fairness and equality demand differentiation on rationally valid criteria. My mind does not allow me to ignore that.

******

16th December 2019

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

Is CAB against secularism?

December 15, 2019

Rohit Dhankar

It is a general response to comments my last few blogs and particularly a Facebook post on CAB 2019 that has attracted many comments. It is an attempt to respond to those particular comments which raise some point of substance. May or may not respond to attacks and derogatory comments which are directed to person, but do not have any substantial point to make. I believe people who have high self-image of conscientious citizens should also have the capability to grant freedom of expression to ideas even if they are against their thinking. I see personal attacks as devices to stop people from expressing their ideas on the pain of ridicule and public insult. Even the worst idea has the right to be expressed and examined.

Formation of beliefs, arriving at conclusion and being self-guided

Our beliefs are formed on the basis of our experiences in interaction with natural and social environment. Many of them we borrowed from others. Many others are formed without much intervention of critical reason. They have the possibility of being justified (right?) as well as unjustified (wrong?). When we want to make decisions, draw conclusions on issues of general social importance, it is our duty as democratic citizens to examine the beliefs, facts, principle and ways of reasoning we are using. Democracy is premised on the assumption that citizens can form informed judgement in the manner indicated above. They may agree or disagree with each other; but every one has the right to arrive at his/her conclusion and to express it. They are also expected to agree or disagree according to their reasoned conclusions; not by herd-instinct nor by following a leader, influencing figure or Guru. Using one’s own mind and facing the consequences of mistakes thus made is better than submitting one’s mind to a master and enjoying security of supposed to be correct judgment.

Now, after these preliminaries, I will discuss the CAB-2019 and why do I think what I think about it.

How can a foreigner not living on Indian soil today become an Indian citizen if s/he wants to?

The principle act that governs citizenship in India is the Citizenship Act 1955 (CA-1955), with its many amendments and other related laws, all mentioned in the act. There are many ways. One way a foreigner who is not living in India today and wants to become a citizen is to come to India on valid papers, live here for 12 years, then apply for naturalization after one-year continuous living, then s/he may be granted citizenship of India. This does not differentiate or discriminate on the basis of religion or nationality or anything else. This is the method which is relevant to CAB-2019.

Another method open to people of Indian origin is to stay in India for seven years and then apply for citizenship. This is also relevant to the CAB-2019. There are many other ways, which are not relevant here.

Will these two or any other way be changed when CAB-2019 becomes operational? Not at all. The CAB-2019 will have absolutely no effect on the general procedure of acquiring Indian citizenship.

Then, has granting of citizenship to general applicants become based on religion in todays India? No, absolutely no. Then why critics of CAB shouting from the roof tops that citizenship has become based on religion is India and Muslims are excluded from granting citizenship now?

Does it malign India internationally? Does it tarnish India’s image? Yes, it does. Are these critics naive enough not to understand it? NO, definitely not, they may easily be the most informed people in India. Then what is their motive behind this malicious propaganda against India?

Will CAB change any of the rights an Indian citizen has today?

No. Absolutely none. There is nothing in CAB-2019 which affects any right of an existing citizen of India, irrespective of caste, creed, region, language, color, or whatever.

Are critics claiming that CAB is against Indian Muslims? Yes, they are. Are they unaware that CAB does not affect the rights of Indian Muslims at all? No, absolutely not.  Then why are they indulging in the false propaganda that CAB-2019 is against Muslim citizens of India? Does it divide Indian population and creates animosity between supporters and opposers of CAB? Yes, it does. Does it malign India internationally? Yes, it does. What are their motives then? Are they helping Indian population make informed decisions or are they misguiding it? You decide.

Who are the people CAB is concerned with?

The CAB-2019 is a narrowly drafted bull that is concerned with people who have entered into India on or before 31st December 2014 from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan (ABP). It is not concerned with people ho have entered India from any other country and in any other times. Therefore, advantages or disadvantages of people who have come from countries other than ABP are completely unaffected. Their advantages and disadvantages remain the same as they are under CA-1955.

Thus, the only people who are affected by CAB are foreigners who came to India on or before 31st December 2014 from AFP. Most of these people belong to the religious communities of Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims. There might be some Jains and Buddhists as well. Personally, I think Parsis and Christians are very few. There are estimates from slightly less than one crore to 1.5 crores Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists. There are also, according to some estimates, 1.5 crore to more than 2 crore Muslims, mainly from Bangladesh. These are the people we are talking about in connection of CAB.

What are the provisions of CAB?

As far as I understand CAB does two things: one, it changes definition of illegal migrants for the people it covers; and two, it speeds up the process of granting citizenship by reducing the number of years required to apply for citizenship by naturalization.

Illegal migrant: CA-1955 defines illegal migrant in Section 2(1)(b) as any one who either entered India without valid travel documents or over stayed the validity of such document. The CAB changes this definition by incenting the following proviso in this clause:

“Provided that any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into India on or before the 31st day of December, 2014 and who has been exempted by the Central Government by or under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 or from the application of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 or any rule or order made thereunder, shall not be treated as illegal migrant for the purposes of this Act;”

 

The status of illegal migrants makes these people ineligible for applying for citizenship through registration and naturalisation. Removing that makes them eligible for the same.

Another provision the CAB makes is to shorten the period of naturalization from 12 years to 5 years. Which means that they can get citizenship by naturalization in 6 years rather than in 13 years, which is normal time for others.

There is also a provision to drop all legal action that may have been initiated in courts for being illegal migrants and granting them citizenship from the date of their entry into the India.

We should remember that Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis and Christians who came from ABP are granted these privileges. No provisions which existed for all others coming from any country and of any religion are removed, restricted, curtailed or denied. They stand as they were in CA-1955. This this is not at all a case of snatching anyone’s opportunity, if is a case of making available some facilities to these people.

What is the basis for extending this facility of faster procedure of citizenship to some?

First the countries: two of the three countries names were part of undivided India before 1947. At the time of partition large scale riots and bloodshed led to migration of Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists to India from the territories that went to Pakistan, East as well as West. Muslims migrated to Pakistan from the territory of India. The partition was on the basis of primarily Muslim demand of separate home land for them. The Provincial and Central Assembly election in 1956 and 46 were mainly fought on the demand of Pakistan and overwhelming majority of Muslim voted (above 89%) for Muslim League which was demanding Pakistan. Therefore, this kind of migration was a natural outcome of this partition.

The flow of Hindus and Sikhs into India and Muslims into Pakistan was continuing unabated till 1950. To stop this migration and provide security to minorities in both countries Nehru-Liaqat Pact was signed in early 1950. According to this both countries should have provided security to the minorities. India tried and reasonably succeeded, Pakistan did not.

Thereafter, the people of Indian origin who got stuck in these two countries became victims of declared Islamic States and intolerance of majority Muslim population.

The third country included in the list is Afghanistan. This is also a Muslim state. And even much more intolerant than the other two. All thee have a common boarder with India. Thus, the communities names in the CAB from these three countries come to India. and have very limited options to go anywhere else.

Why Muslims are not included? Let’s look at the reasons why this fast tack citizenship provision is being given to the six religious groups mentioned. (1) many of them, particularly some of Hindus and Sikhs, are here for over 50 years without citizenship now. (2) They are illegal migrants as per the definition in CA-1955, and many of them do not have papers to prove their Indian origin as well. Therefore, can apply neither for registration, nor for naturalization. (3) their countries are declared Islamic theological states, which by definition discriminates on the basis of religion. The Muslim majority in these countries is intolerant, that makes life of minorities miserable. (4) Therefore, they can not go back. Meaning: some way has to be found for them to make them Indian citizens.

Maximum number of Muslims who have come here are Bangladeshi. They did not come here for any kind of religious or any other persecution by the state. Actually, there was never a good reason to allow them to cross the border. They came here for economic reasons. If they want to become Indian citizens, they can apply for naturalization, and if they meet the criteria and Indian government thinks fit, can be granted citizenship. Why should the Indian government facilitate their citizenship through faster track? What are the reasons critics of CAB advance for extending the same facility to them? Should the reason for fleeing their country be considered in providing fast track option for citizenship or not? If not, why?

Why Shias and Ahmadis not included?

Shias and Ahmadis are definitely persecuted in Pakistan. But that is a matter of factions within Islam. Ahmadi call themselves Muslim, the whole world recognizes them as Muslims, but Pakistan does not. Under what category would one facilitate their citizenship? And why citizenship? They can seek asylum as refugees and can be treated as so. Shisas in Pakistan are not persecuted by the state, Ahmadis may be. They both are victims of bigotry of the majority. The distinction with the CAB makes is persecution by the state on the basis of religion. Shias and Ahmadis can hardly pass the scrutiny under Article 14 of Constitution of India, while the six religions mentioned in the CAB are likely to.

Why Rohingyas are not included?

May be Rohingyas can be considered for temporary refugee status. But why should any one expect India to extend fast track citizenship to them? What is the logic? Religious persecution, say the Rohingya supporters. One problem is history of Rohingyas. This history includes violence on Rakhines, separatism and terrorism. The one time darling of present day Rohingya supporters Aung San Suu Kyi has fallen from grace because she dared call a spade a spade; that Rohingyas have been involved in violence, separatism, deliberately disrupting process of separating illegal migrants and genuine residents of Myanmar and terrorism. Why should India have special considerations for them?

Why Balochis are not included? 

Balochis don’t want your citizenship. On the maximum they may want temporary political asylum and help in their political struggle. This is a none issue which cri/tics of the CAB are trying to create.

Why Sri Lankan Hindus not included?

They are not persecuted for their religion. It was an ethnic political struggle. And there are chances of rapprochement and their going back.

Is the bill against secularism?

The option of fast track citizenship, change of definition of illegal migrants, withdrawal of legal action if any, and citizenship from date of entry is available to six religious communities, but not to Muslims. ‘Secularism is a doctrine that rejects religion and religious consideration’ in state policy making. This policy clearly considers religion in deciding who is allowed to use the provisions of CAB and who is not. Therefore, the decision is against secularism, it is discriminatory against the Muslims. This is the argument as far as I understand advanced by CAB critics.

I have a few issues with this argument. In today’s half-thought-quick-blame atmosphere I must repeat that the problem I see is not with the principle of secularism, but with the application of above stated argument in this particular case.

One device through which the principle of secularism becomes operational is equality rights, another is special minority provisions. The constitution of India provides for special minority rights, and minorities include religious minorities as well. Some of these rights are listed under articles 29, 30, 347 and 350. Thus, Indian constitution does consider religions as a basis for policy making when there are good enough reasons and when protection is being provided to minorities. These are the examples of rights which I think the minorities should have and to my mind do not violate the principle of secularism in spite of religious minorities being included in them. This to my mind is thoughtful application of principles of secularism and equality; as against dogmatic rigidity of the same.

There are also examples of legal differences based on religion which to my mind violate the principle of secularism but are part of the Indian legal system. One such difference is separate personal laws for religious communities. Another is a little known acceptance of an Islamic concept of ‘Waqf by User’. Ayodhya judgment of the Supreme Court discusses this principle in detail. In a nutshell the principle state that: if a group of Muslims is allowed to offer namaz on a piece of property, if namaz is public in charater (that any muslim can join) and continues for a sufficiently long time; then that property automatically turns into Waqf property and the original owner can not get it back. This is even if the original owner was not aware of this law, had absolutely no intention of gifting the property, and is not even a Muslim. The same right is not available to any other religious community in India, as far as I know.

What do these examples mean? To me they mean that the principle of secularism has to be applied thoughtfully and not dogmatically. And when exceptions are made to protect genuine rights or addressing genuine problems of minorities, then the principle of secularism is not considered violated.

The six religious communities mentioned in the CAB are clearly persecuted in the three Islamic states of ABF, actually a genocide is going on, whether we admit or not. Muslims are not persecuted because of their religion. There might be within the religion sectarian issues (Shisas and Ahmadis) and political issues of Balochis, but they are different in character; do not fall under the same category. Therefore, making special provisions for these six minorities in these three Islamic countries is not a violation of the principle of secularism to my mind.

The issue of article 14

The article 14 of constitution of India states: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. We can consider two questions here, (1) Can the minority argument we saw in the last section for Indian citizens be extended to persons who are not Indian citizens but are in the territory of India? (2) does CAB violate this article?

Regarding question (1) I do not see why it should not be extended to people who are on the Indian soil but are not citizens?

Question (2) demands a little more thought. The first part of the article is about equality before the law, and the second is about equal protection of the laws. The equal protection of law demands that “equals would be treated equally, whilst un-equals should not be treated unequally”. I am not a legal person but at this moment (till someone enlightens me) I believe that this principle is accepted under Indian constitution and referred to as “principle of reasonable difference”. I do not know what could be a clearer reasonable difference than continuous religion-based persecution for some and in principle absence of such persecution for others. We should remember that the persecution here referred to is persecution by the state, and not because of sectarian attacks on each other within a religion. Thus, to my mind the CAB does not violate this article. Yes, there is difference, but this difference does not constitute ‘discrimination against Muslims’, neither the bill target Muslims.

Can the bill be used against Muslims in NRC?

In a country like India, riddled with corruption and religious biases (even bigotry) what sane person can deny such possibility? Yes, this is possible. But how many laws do we have which have been and continuously being misused to harass people? Just to name a few, laws against dowry and against caste atrocities are misused many times. Still we need them in our patriarchal and casteist society because otherwise the weaker will be more vulnerable. And also, because by cleaning and tightening the system we can reduce the instances of misuse.

In my view we should spend our energy, good will, zeal and power to prevent misuse of the CAB rather than in opposing it and proving ourselves insensitive to the unfortunate people who have tried to escape religious persecution. It is interesting that no critic of CAB has suggested anything serious to solve the problem of these people.

Should imputing motives be acceptable in public debate?

The record of BJP in not taking a tough stand against cow-lynching cases, statements of its leaders, involvement of some of leaders in riots, etc. can not be denied. Its obvious use of religion (ex. Ram Mandir) in elections also cannot be denied. One can neither support such acts nor can condone. And still I believe one has to be very careful in imputing motives in every single case.

The liberals all opposed triple talaq bill on unreasonable ground and imputed motives of exposing Muslim men to punishment while Hindus remain unaffected if they abandon their wives. The argument is clearly wrong. Simply because the law does not allow a Hindu husband to escape responsibility if he abandoned wife goes to court. What motive did liberals have here? The question I am asking is: what makes liberals above suspicion of motives? If someone say that the critics of CAB are against Hindus (as Hindus are the majority among the beneficiaries of CAB) and do not want to allow the state to give them citizenship, or that the liberals are actually indirectly bargaining for allowing Muslim illegal migrants from Bangladesh; how can such charges be answered?

To my mind in the current dishonest scenario all have objectionable motives and we as citizens are condemned to live and navigate our paths in this muck. Therefore, staying with the things which could be established with facts and reason is the best way at the moment.

Meaning of my story

Finally, coming to my story on the FB which attracted adverse comments and some personal attacks. First, I stand by what I said in that little fable, stand by all its meaning. Second, fable writing is not my area, I should have been more careful against possibility of misinterpretation, deliberate as well as genuine. Third, people did misinterpret.

I thought that I am addressing people who are in this debate and have been reading some of my pieces on CAB. Therefore, took much common understanding for granted. The fable obviously is too direct, that is how I meant it. The six critically ill patients are obviously taken from the CAB list of religious communities. Critical illness is their problem of citizenship in the absence of any possibility of going back. Thus, they face either persecution and be condemned to misery in their original countries or live in India without citizenship rights. The 15 not critically ill are to indicate illegal migrants without persecution. India has no obligation to them to grant citizenship as I explained above. And their possibility to return back to their countries is still open. Or since they have come of their own freewill illegally, some other provision should be made to them. The numbers 6 and 15 are somewhat disproportional, but as far as I know the number of six religious communities who will get CAB benefits is less that the illegal migrants from Bangladesh. I may be mistaken there and would be willing to change my mind if get authentic figures. But want to make clear that both the numbers, 6 and 15, indicate illegal migrants only.

I still say the something, under the misguided interpretation of secularism opposing CAB means either being insensitive to the persecuted or demanding equal treatment for unequal. Both are objectionable as far as I understand.

Conclusion

I am under no illusion that this article will convince people in favor of CAB or that it will make my thinking any clearer to them. I also needed it purely for myself, to examine my own contentions as clearly as possible. Therefore, it is to convince no one and it is to convince everyone. That is the character of public debates.

I do not agree with the current dominant sentiment expressed in public debate against CAB. Those who do not like it can argue against it, if they like. Will try to respond to such people, even if their views are completely opposite of mine. Those who get too angry can attack, and I reserve my right to decide to respond or not; or when.

All I say is: clear, free from politically correct expression of views and arguments serves democracy and freedom the best. Paraphrasing on Socrates will also add, unexamined positions and views of our gurus, teachers, masters, icons and leaders are not worth supporting and chanting.

*******

15th December 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

India needs upright clear-sighted intellectuals to defend itself

December 10, 2019

Rohit Dhankar

The metaphor of India and Bharat are often used to understand the wide gap between relatively less educated and poorer rural India and urban India. The discourse on nationalism, patriotism and love for the country has brought to my mind a distinction which remains unnoticed or at the least unused so far, but also has a connection to this one.

There are Indians who are educated, have resources and often travel abroad. Most of these Indians have relatives outside India and all their children have aspirations of being educated in western universities. These people have a broad global outlook and possibility of working and settling down anywhere in the world. Many of them have arrangements in foreign universities for teaching assignments.  Let’s call this class Winged Indians (WI). Being a WI does not imply that they do not have roots in Indian culture, actually they may have very deep roots and understand Indian culture very well. It is only that they also have wings to fly anywhere in addition to their roots which can be easily up-rooted.

The overwhelming majority of Indians are much less educated and much poorer. They do not have relatives in western countries and education for their children is very tough struggle even within India. These people can have no dreams of flying to any other country and settling down there. Some of them may fly to Gulf countries as labourers, but that is very different. These people have only one country to look up to: India, that is Bharat. Let’s call them Rooted Indians (RI). RIs may not have great understanding of Indian culture and many of them may not even have a very clear idea of India as a nation or a country. But they have nowhere else to go, they see it as the only home they have.

These two groups of Indians naturally have very different attitudes to country and on issues of patriotism and nationalism. WIs are very relaxed and open about such issues; often to the point of being unconcerned. The extreme WIs deride the sentiments of patriotism and nationalism and pride themselves on being free from such retrograde feelings. RIs feel much closer relationship and belongingness to the country; no doubt of necessity as this big bad ugly Bharat is all that they have. Also, this is all they have seen and know about. The RIs cannot afford unconcern and demeaning outlook to India, patriotism and nationalism. If they do, they have no peg to hang their identity on; while RIs can change their identities like chameleons.

Indian discourse on politics and particularly of nation related issues—patriotism, nationalism, citizenship, history, culture—is completely in the hands of WIs and the lesser mortals who see the WIs as their icons. WIs are the people who are heard and published and aired in India and abroad; their followers create a dust storm of such ideas at the ground level.

The Hindus among the WIs are very hesitant to admit ownership of Indian cultural heritage, they want to show themselves as liberated universal humanists. I do not think that Indian heritage in any way contradicts universal humanism, to my mind it rather prepares the way for it. But WIs think differently. They are positively embarrassed if someone reminds them their Hindu heritage. Their hallmark is that they were unable to criticise even ISIS without first pointing out something bad in Hinduism (completely out of context) and then separating ISIS from Islam. After these two rituals they could criticise ISIS with further concessions made for obnoxious role of the western powers. By that time their criticism mostly sounded like a praise. This I have mentioned only to show how defensive and embarrassed they feel regarding India and Hinduism; and how morally bound they feel to defend Islam.

Presently there is a fierce ideological struggle going on in India. On one side are the WIs and on the other are Sanghi Hindus (SH). The RIs align with neither of them. SHs are too narrow mined for RIs and WIs are beyond their ken to understand. There is no one to present the views and interest of the RIs. The SH are intellectually deficient and are no match to the WIs in spinning language and international networking. First, the SH defence of India is overly Hinduised, and second they do not know how to spin an illogical web that blinds you to their fallacies. The WIs are masters in the second.

This situation forces me to come to the conclusion that India needs a class of upright clearsighted intellectuals to defend itself. Upright because the WIs (which is the intellect of India presently) are not so. They live on their reputation built among the specific circles of liberals. They rarely have a spine to criticise anything which is accepted by these circles, and even if someone of them commits such a mistake, a host of others attacks and brings him/her down to knees.

If we take the presently hotly debated Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2019 (CAB-2019 the situation will be clear. One, every one knows by now that the basically acquiring Indian citizenship is governed by the Citizenship Act 1955 (CA-1955). AC-1955 does not discriminate on the basis of religion and the CAB-2019 does not curtail any provisions already made in CA19-55. What CAB-2019 does is provides for faster facilitation of acquiring citizenship through registration and naturalisation and allows certain persecuted religious communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan apply even when they do not have valid travel documents. This facility is available only to those who have entered India on or before 31st December 2014. This faster facility is not made available to Muslims coming from the said countries.

Now, one can certainly argue, right or wrong, that the bill is discriminatory against Muslims coming to India from the three mentioned countries. It could be a matter of debate if such a discrimination is constitutional or not, whether it is against the idea of India or not, whether it had become a necessity for India or not, and so on.

But declaring that ‘now citizenship in India will be decide on the basis of religion’, ‘No Muslims, this is India’, ‘India has become a Hindu Rashtra’, ‘India has become a theocratic state’, ‘India has become Hindu Pakistan’, and so on is clearly maligning India.

These pronouncements are against India, not against BJP alone. Criticising BJP is not a problem. Criticising the bill is no problem. Deriding India as a theocratic state is, equating it with Pakistan is, maligning India as a Hindu Rashtra is. Saying that the CAB-2019 impinges on the rights of Muslim citizens of India is a huge problem, it does not.

To my mind the bill facilitates faster citizenship to those persecuted minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan who are residing in India for decades. To deny persecution of Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis and Christians in these three Islamic theocratic states is impossible for any objective person, unless s/he happens to be a WI. The Muslims who have come from Bangladesh and Pakistan to India have not come here because of religious persecution. I do not understand why they should be offered citizenship on faster track? They can apply normally if they want.

Shias and Ahmadias are persecuted in Pakistan. But they also campaigned aggressively for separate Muslim country. They got their promised land. They have to fight their political battle there if they are still persecuted in their ideal theocracies, created by their significant help. Rohingyas are another example of persecuted minority in Myanmar. But it is a complicated story that has much Rohingya-bigotry in the background. Reading their history of separatism and violence on Rakhines has to be taken in to account when one decides on them.

In my view the people who deride and attack India for CAB-2019 are essentially arguing for faster citizenship to huge number of Bangladeshi Muslims. If there are any arguments for granting citizenship to illegal Bangladeshi Muslim migrants, I would like to know them.  Views and ways of thinking as I have expressed above may be wrong, and can be criticised. Counter arguments can be given. But a balanced person will not malign India and its democratic process for that.

The WIs need to be countered in side India and internationally not for a fair critique of the bill but for maligning India. SHs are ideologically unfit and intellectually deficient to do that. That is why we need a class of balanced intellectuals who can be sensitive to RIs, who can remember our tradition and our constitution with commitment.

We are still a nation, and want to remain one who believes in

अयं बन्धुरयं नेति गणना लघुचेतसाम् ।

उदारचरितानां तू वसुधैव कुटुम्बकम् । । ७१ । । (महोपनिषद ६.७१)

“Only small-minded discriminate saying: One is a bandhu; the other is a stranger. For those who broad-minded the entire world constitutes but a family.” Therefore, no discrimination on faith, but the faiths have to accept the same principle; no faith can be allowed to be special and discriminate against other people.

We are still a nation who believes in

न तत्परस्य संदाद्यातात्प्रतिकूलम यदात्मन: ।

एष संक्षिप्तो धर्मेर्ततवप्र: यन्दामकः ॥ (महाभारत १३.११४.०८)

“One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of Righteousness. One by acting in a different way by yielding to desire, becomes guilty of unrighteousness.” Therefore, no atrocities to anyone, but no one can be allowed to perpetrate atrocities on others as well.

We need to protect our constitution and its promise of secularism, equality, justice, freedom and dignity to all without discrimination.

For that we need intellectuals who do not make false exaggerated claims to prove their point. Who do not vie with each other to attract attention by being abusing India.  We need intellectuals who can criticise each and everything that is against these principles but without abusing us for what we are not, nor we want to become. Also, we need to silence, through pure force of reason, these Winged Indians who declare India a Hindu Pakistan on the drop of a hat.

*******

10 December 2019

 

 

 

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

Babri Masjid and Citizenship Amendment Bill

December 6, 2019

Rohit Dhankar

Babri Masjid

On this day of 6th December 1992, a grave crime against secularism (and therefore, against democracy) was committed by a mob organised and instigated by some powerful people of Bharatiy Janata Party (BJP). The crime was demolition of a centuries old mosque, called Babri Masjid, in Ayodhya. This demolition happened in the face of assurance given by the central government and the state government of that time. This was breach of trust of Indian citizens in general and Muslims in particular.

The perpetrators and instigators of this crime are still unpunished. The Supreme Court since then has awarded the land on which Babri Masjid stood to Hindu parties. It seems to me that the Muslim parties had established their possession on the inner courtyard of the said masjid and therefore, they too had a right to part of this land.

I am also convinced that the Babri Masjid was almost certainly built on the site of a demolished temple of earlier times. I came to this conclusion after reading the SC judgment very carefully and referring to some books and material mentioned therein. Neither the SC not Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) say it clearly, but they also do not deny the possibility. No historian of repute accepts what I am saying. But the ASI report, age old attempts of Hindus to continue worship there and the fact that it is situated in an area which has many old and destroyed temples convinces me that it was built on a temple.

However, since we are a secular democracy since 26th January 1950 and a free country since 15th August 1947, we should have accepted what was there on that land on 15th August 1947. And that was Babri Masjid. Therefore, (1) part of the land should have gone to the Muslim parties, (2) those who demolished the Masjid and aided in this dastardly act should be punished. Irrespective of the SC judgment.

*********

Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB)

I have written a blog on this yesterday.

It seems most liberals consider CAB an attack on the soul of secular India. I think they are mistaken or taking a deliberately wrong stand out of ideological commitments.

Anyone who pays attention to the following, it seems to me, will come to the conclusion that CAB is an attempt to help oppressed minorities in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan and simultaneously to safeguard national security.

Points to note:

  1. People who migrated to territory of what is now Pakistan after partition did not acquire citizenship of free India.
  2. People who remained in the Pakistani territory after a certain date also lost the opportunity to acquire the same.
  3. Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan are Muslim majority states and Islamic theocratic states. Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis and Christians are persecuted minorities there, with lesser rights than Muslims. (I am not sure of Bangladesh, regarding constitutionally lesser rights, will check.)
  4. The history of these countries tells us that minorities are oppressed there. Liberals are very reluctant to admit that minorities are persecuted or not given equal rights in most of Muslim majority countries. However, it is true.
  5. As per the Citizenship Act 1955 any one, including Muslims, from any country can become an Indian citizen after following due procedure. This is the main act. The CAB is not restricting that part of the act.
  6. The CAB is providing facility for accelerated citizenship only for the oppressed minorities in these three intolerant countries.
  7. This is not on the basis of religion; it is on the basis of persecution. Because the procedure of naturalisation for all other countries and all religions remains the same as stated in Citizenship Act 1955.
  8. It is necessary because lakhs of such oppressed people are living in India for decades without citizenship rights. Those who are opposing the bill are turning a blind eye to these miserable people.
  9. The facility of accelerated citizenship can not be extended to Muslims from the three mentioned countries because they are not oppressed there for their religion. And two of these countries are created because Muslims wanted that.
  10. It also can not be extended to Muslims because lakhs (some estimates say more than a crore) Bangladeshi Muslims have crossed the boarder and living in India illegally. They did not come here because of any persecution, are illegal and have changed demography in many areas. They cannot be given Indian citizenship.
  11. Therefore, the bill is on the basis of persecution, is not anti-secularism and not unjust to Muslims.
  12. Liberals as well as Muslims should recognise that Islamic supremacy operates in Muslim majority countries in an open and unabashed manner. Where Muslims are in minority this Islamic supremacy changes into an ‘Aggressive Victimhood Card’(AVC). Sensible Muslims and liberals should avoid this trap.
  13. The CAB does not victimise Indian Muslims in any way. They should stop playing this AVC.

If any part of this post offends anyone please see the logic. Avoid name-calling, I am open to sensible arguments. And always admit a possibility of mistake (human error) in facts and/or argument.

Calling people Sicular, Libratard, Bhakta etc expresses an undeserved superiority or stupefy. This actually is a form of stupidity/lack of confidence generated by frustration of not finding good arguments to counter. Counter the arguments if you happen to possess any intellect. Name calling will show you to be an idiot. 😊

******

6th December 2019

 

 

 

 

 

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

Will Citizenship Amendment Bill make India a Hindu Pakistan?

December 5, 2019

Rohit Dhankar

[This one I have written with much less certainly then most other posts. I am tentative on many of my arguments and will we open to better arguments offered without exaggeration.]

There is a lot of opposition to Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB). Most people misrepresent what the bill actually wants to do, exaggerate it as if it is denying citizenship to Muslims. Even as balanced people as Yogendra Yadava coin slogans like “Its essence may be summed up as: No Muslims please, this is India”. Which is less then half a truth and maligns India. Some declare India to become “Hindu Pakistan” if the bill is passed. A citizen today needs to examine these claims with a cool head. For that, lets first see what CAB 2019 wants to change in Citizenship Act, 1955.

First, let’s understand that the bill has no effect at all on the status and rights of Indian citizens. All present citizens of India; irrespective of their caste, creed, language, etc.; remain equal citizens. Thus, those who are telling us that it is discriminatory against Muslims citizens of India are telling lies.

Second, it does not debar Muslims from any country of the world from becoming citizens of India through due process. Which is: they can become citizens through naturalisation and by registration. There is no religion-based discrimination in Citizenship Act, 1955 for ordinary people in this regard and CAB 2019 is not snatching away or reducing those rights of any person from any country.

Then what is CAB 2019 supposed to do? Those who want to understand the issue fully in terms of citizenship as in Part II of Constitution, Citizenship Act 1955 and CAB 2019 can click hear to read original documents.

In brief, CAB 2019 wants to do two things (which are relevant to the point of discussion):

One: “Under the existing provisions of the Act, persons belonging to the minority communities, such as Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, who have either entered into India without valid travel documents or the validity of their documents have expired are regarded as illegal migrants and hence ineligible to apply for Indian citizenship. It is proposed to make them eligible for applying for Indian citizenship.” That is; it wants to change the definition of “illegal migrants” for persecuted minority communities, such as Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. But does not want to change this definition for Muslims from the three countries.

Two: “It is proposed to amend the Third Schedule to the Act to make applicants belonging to minority communities from the aforesaid countries eligible for citizenship by naturalisation in seven years instead of the existing twelve years.”

In brief, it is changing definition of illegal migrants in favour of Hindus, Boudhs, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis and Christians; but not for Muslims. And it is making the possibility of citizenship by naturalisation in seven years for these people, while others will have to wait for 12 years.

Now is it declaring “No Muslims please, this is India”? It is half truth to deceive people, couched in emotive terms. Neither deception nor emotive expression can serve as good arguments. But most of the debate runs on such lines. Mr. Yadav wrote an article in January 2019 titled “With amended Citizenship Act, BJP will do Jinnah proud”

He makes a point that by passing this bill India will accept two nation theory on which Pakistan was created. We will do well to remember that two nation theory was mostly propounded by Muslims from Shah Waliullah to Zinnah via Sir Syed and Iqbal. Among Hindus only Golwalkar and Savarkar, among the people of note, accepted it. Now, Mr. Yadav argues that this bill would mean India has accepted the bigoted theory. Well, finally Nehru, Patel, Gandhi and virtually every congress man and woman has to accept Pakistan. Of course, after they realised that no amount of persuasion and assurance is going to cut any ice among Muslims against the possibility of a Shariya governed theocracy. Did they all accept two nation theory when they accepted Pakistan? Or they were only forced to admit that two nation theory in Muslim mind can not be defeated by their secular arguments?

This bill is criticised for being against secularism. It does not debar Muslims from becoming Indian citizens through due process as defined in Citizenship Act 1955. It only refuses to make it especially easier for them as it makes it for Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Sikhs coming from precisely three countries where they are persecuted.

Why is the bill proposing to make it easies for persons belonging to these communities? Well, who does not know that these communities are being persecuted in the three Islamic Theocratic states mentioned? They have come into India in large number to escape such persecution due only to their religion. Staying here for years, some for decades. Most of them remained in Pakistan and Bangladesh after partition hoping they will be allowed to live there as human beings. But the Islamic intolerance, which is squarely denied by most liberals, proved to be stronger than their hope. Should India do something to help them in coming out of their miseries? A humanitarian answer seems to be yes. But those opposing the CAB argue that “don’t make any concessions to persecuted, unless you are ready to make the same to Muslims who are not persecuted as well”.

The crux of the secular argument, as Barkha Dutt elaborates in her ill argued piece, is: if it is because of persecution why does not India extend the same hospitality to Balochis, Shias, Ahmadis from Pakistan and Rohingyas from Myanmar?

This is an interesting mix of categories. Balochis are being persecuted not for religion, but for political reasons. Of course, India should help them as much as it can and also give them political asylum and refugee status if need be. But why facilitate citizenship? Political struggles are to gain rights at their own place.

Shias and Ahmadis may be prosecuted in Pakistan today for their faiths. But they demanded Pakistan for Muslims along with Sunnis. They were part of the two-nation theory and were successful in getting what they wanted. The problems they are facing are their own creation. Muslims when partitioned the country on the basis of religion lost all rights for special consideration. However, if they want to become citizens of India, they can follow the normal course of coming with proper documents, which they can easily do, and apply for naturalisation, they will get their citizenship if deserved in 12 years. Why should India make special considerations for them?

Rohingyas is a very complicated story. Their history in Myanmar has not been only of victims but also includes separatism, Shariya movements, attacking Rakhines, denying equal citizenship without special consideration for shariya etc. Also, India has no special obligation to them. They certainly do not deserve facilitation of citizenship. May be temporary refugee status as per the refugee conventions and on sweet will of India.

The argument that the facilitation of citizenship acquisition is being based on religion is not entirely true. It is not being advanced for Hindus etc. from all countries of the world. But only from three Muslim majority Islamic theocratic states. The real reason is not religion but religious persecution. There is a difference between the two for those who want to see. India is being forced by the Islamic intolerance in the three named countries, it is a response to a crisis created by these countries where India is at the receiving end, it is a consequence of their intolerance and resultant situation. Not something India is initiating.

Still India blaming is the favourite social mediate discourse. Let’s see a few tweets.

“Arfa Khanum Sherwani, @khanumarfa: All this while, we were protesting and resisting to save India from turning into a ‘Hindu Pakistan’. But now it looks like the day is not far when we will turn into a ‘Hindu Israel’. #CitizenshipAmendmentBill, 10:53 PM · Dec 4, 2019·Twitter for iPhone”

Her and her friends use of ‘Hindu Pakistan’ is multilayer and interesting. Let’s not forget that Pakistan was created by cutting a chunk out of a very old country for the sake of religion. There is also a hint that Hinduism has all the making of an intolerant religion as Islam has proved through history. It is to malign Hinduism to equate it with Islam in intolerance. This kind of rhetoric will force people to ask harsh questions, which liberals will see as non-secular. Which Hindu scripture sanctions jihad on non-believers? This is important because intolerance at the level Pakistan practices necessarily requires scriptural sanction. When in history Hindus indulged in forced conversions? This is relevant because Pakistan practices it in the name of Islam. When did Hindus destroy others’ places of worship? This is important because Pakistan did that in the name of Islam and Islam did it throughout the world in the name of religion of Allah. The people who talk of Hindu Pakistan do not notice that Hinduism does not have the theological and cultural ingredients to create something as monstrous as Pakistan even if majoritarian attitude hardens. Secular Hindus will surely defeat the BJP kind of Hindu-tilt; but the more the liberals equate Hinduism and Islam in intolerance longer time they will take and more efforts they will have to make.

Yogendra Yadav suggests a portrait of Jinnah along with Savarkar. “@_YogendraYadav: When passing CAB, Lok Sabha should install a portrait of Jinnah, alongside Savarkar. If Bapu was alive, he would have done a fast unto death agaist this preposterous law that strikes at the idea of India.”

His secularism argument we have dealt with. Bapu’s fast hardly makes anything right. Bapu did many things to push his ideas and ideals as well as favoured individuals on the basis of not any spiritual power but pure emotional and political blackmail and Ambedkar noticed. Maybe he would have won even today, but that hardly makes it right.

Savarkar, in-spite of his Hindutva accepted equality of all citizens by 1944 resolution of Hindu Mahasabha. And he did nothing to divide the country. Jinnah deliberately divided the country. Again an untenable parallel which will reduce the weight of his good arguments.

Saba Naqvi is more balanced “@_sabanaqvi: #CAB would make India a #HinduRashtra in spirit and law. It should be legally challenged for discriminating against people on basis of religion. 6:34 PM · Dec 4, 2019·Twitter for Android”

Her first claim of course is wrong. Passing of the bill will certainly not make India a Hindu Rashtra. As all citizens will still remain equal irrespective of their religion. But if the bill is seen as discriminating one should take it to the court. That is definitely a proper way of dealing with legislations bulldozed through parliament but happen to be against the spirit of constitution.

Prof. S Irfan Habib is a very sane voice in today’s climate. Even he thinks that it is against the spirit of Indian nationhood. “@irfhabib Tweeted: The CAB stands against the very spirit of Indian nationhood and inclusive nationalism as defined by our founding fathers. Leaders like Gandhi, Patel, Nehru, Azad and others debated and discussed it intensively during freedom struggle which was later enshrined in the Constitution. (https://twitter.com/irfhabib/status/1202148589784272896?s=20)”.

But even he does not payed attention to the situation in which India is pushed because of intolerance to minorities in its neighbourhood. Indian nationhood primarily constitutes in treatment of its citizens and rights and entitlements its citizens enjoy. So far, we have no discriminatory legislations which curtain or deny rights on the basis of religion. Yes, we are going through a turmoil. But we will go through it without harming any section of the Indian citizens as well as without harming the secularism and democracy.

An interesting feature of all such writing is that none of them pays even lip service to the atrocities faced by minorities in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. Forget about suggesting any measures to help those persecuted people. These are the same people who have such huge sympathy for Rohingyas. Well, if you think that making citizenship easier to these persecuted people is against secularism, please do suggest what India should do with lakhs of such people in India? Or do you insist that the same facility be extended to those who have come here of their own freewill without any persecution? Would that be just?

Finally, to the doom’s day says: India is an old country with an age old cultural and religious diversity. Its constitutional nationhood is new, but as a ‘country’ it is millennia old. Its tradition of tolerance and dealing with multiple perspectives on life and world is very old. Even if we deny it vehemently, this tradition of tolerance and accepting diversity has played a very important role in keeping India secular even after a bloody partition based on religion. Presently, that tradition is under threat, its is true. But the threat has at least partially emerged because there is a certain ‘intolerance’ in the voluble elite even to the mention of anything good Indian, its culture and Hinduism. The BJP and RSS saw the opportunity of harnessing this public irritation with this constant maligning,  and captures public imagination in this environment. The so-called intellectuals did not know how to communicate with the masses, therefore, could not counter BJP etc.

But in-spite of the failure of western bookish intellectuals and misguided rhetoric of BJP, Indian culture will create solutions which will remain open, inclusive, tolerant, democratic and sane. Or at the least I hope so.

******

5 December 2019

 

 

 

 

 

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

Yes, Godse was a patriot

November 30, 2019

Rohit Dhankar

[I would like to repeat what I am arguing for. Such repetition is required in the mindless slogan shouting era of today to safeguard against misunderstanding. I am not saying Godse was a great man. I am not saying Gandhi was a bad man worth killing. I am not saying, at the least not here, that Gandhi’s policies were wrong. I am representing how Godse thought. And I don’t agree with Sanghis, because whatever little know of their thinking on the issue, they attack Gandhi to prove that Godse was a patriot. I don’t take that position. I think it is possible that a patriot can be stupid enough to kill a greater patriot than himself, and harm the country by mistake. I am arguing strictly for two points only:

  1. Godse was a patriot and actually he killed Gandhi because he was a patriot.
  2. The people today who want that anyone who says that Godse was a patriot should be punished are bigots. Because they want all other views eliminated but their own. And that is precisely what a bigot is: A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.]

In response to my yesterdays blog post some people have raised a question that Godse does not satisfy criteria three and four of the definition I quoted.

Of course, they are free to have their own interpretation of any of these criteria or have an altogether different definition of a patriot. I have no objection to that; nor do I have any right to object.

As far as my interpretation is concerned criteria three “Special concern for the well-being of the country” means ‘special concern in comparison to other countries’; and since country is necessarily made up of people (contrary to some fools who think country in this sense refers to land), thus, in a democratic country all citizens should be included. Godse says (if one wants to question his statement, s/he should find more material) that he always favoured democracy with equal rights to all. In this connection he quotes resolution of Hindu Mahasabha which unambiguously declares all Indians equal. Godse participated in congress protests in early thirties. Then was disillusioned by congress’ ambiguity on communal award, and joined Hindu Mahasabha and RSS. He also edited two news papers “Agrani” and “Hindu Rashtra”.  Any one who wants to see if he stayed steadfast to equal rights to all citizens should do some research and look if anything was published in these papers which proved that he argued for less rights for any section of Indian citizenry. Going by the name “Hindu Rashtra” will be foolish, perusal of actual content will be necessary. Therefore, to me he satisfies criteria three.

Criteria four “willingness to sacrifice to promote the country’s good” refers to taking personal risk and personal sacrifice. It does not mean that particular act in which risk and sacrifice occurs is necessarily for the whole population. It may be for a particular section which happens to be persecuted or oppressed at that time. Godse saw that political situation such that the most important section of the Indian nation “Hindus” (even by number they were and are most important section, and those who feel ashamed by this are suffering from some kind of complex) were under direct oppression. He also thought, rightly or wrongly, that identity and ethos of Indian nation have the largest contribution from Hindu culture. Godse also believed, and you are free to counter that if you can, India can remain secular only as long as the Hindus are in majority. One has to remember that partition had just happened and that was on the behest of Muslims, and was to establish a theocratic state. He thought that practical state decisions (like withholding Rs.55 crore, Kashmir and Hyderabad) keep getting reversed under Gandhi’s pressure to make Muslims happy; in addition to suffering for Hindus, India as a nation will become week, hostage to Muslim sentiment and Gandhi’s whims and will be unable to maintain its freedom, democracy and secularism. As I have repeatedly said he might have been wrong in his understanding, and that may make him a fool. But his sentiments and line of reasoning was informed by concern for the country and his act was a knowing act of self-sacrifice.

Many people do not know many things of that time. For example, many don’t know that Indian government banned reporting of massacre of Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan because they feared a reaction in India. News papers were required to take such an undertaking and deposit security amount. Godse saw it as the continuation of old tendency of hiding Muslim atrocities.

If particular concern for Hindus, without prejudice to equal rights to Muslims, is held to be a disqualification for being a patriot then Lala Lajpat Rai, Madan Mohan Malaviya, Aurobind, Hardayal, Vivekananda, and a host more people will have to be excluded. Many of this last list are dubbed communal by left liberals in their biased thinking. They only recognised that the Hindu society needs to be reformed and educated, and that continuous weakening of Hindu society is dangerous for India. None of them was antimuslim, however, many of them recognised a group behaviour among Muslims which could easily be moulded to give religion preference over the nation or country.

Lastly, the theories which consider patriotism as a negative sentiment understand neither humans nor countries, nations and cultures. These are logically inconsistent and morally flowed theories. Consider the following:

  1. A concept using rational human being is not possible without social living (shared life form)
  2. Answers to question of Identity (who am I?), Morality (What should I do?) Reason (Why should I do that?) are fundamental to human existence. No such questions, no humanity.
  3. None of these questions can be answered in isolation; that establishes necessity of community.
  4. None of them can be answered in a moment to moment manner; that establishes continuity for a live (self-reflecting and changing) cultural tradition.
  5. Such communities and cultural traditions cannot survive without some kind of political formation.
  6. Sustenance of such political formation in good, just and dynamic form require responsible and critical citizenry.
  7. Unless there are people who are willing to contribute materially, organisationally, intellectually, in security and politically; such communities and political formations can not survive.
  8. A commitment to such contribution requires the four criteria of patriotism.
  9. Thus, survival of such communities and political formations require patriotism.

The theories which deride patriotism either don’t understand or are deliberately encouraging free-loaders, thriving on others’ contribution without contributing anything or even may be harming the communities. Such theories should attract serious intellectual and moral critique. On the contrary, presently they are considered intellectually more refined and morally more advanced. They emerge out of the delusion created in the minds of academics which are given space to do only intellectual work because society recognises the need of advancement of knowledge. When such academics live too long in their cocoons where all needs are taken care of, and appreciation is louder for weaving finer and finer webs of words; they become deluded that they are advancing human understanding; while actually they have lost connection with real struggling human condition for long. Those who want empty academic appreciation may ravel in such theories.

At the end I would like to repeat what I am arguing for. Such repetition is required in the mindless slogan shouting era of today to safeguard against misunderstanding. I am not saying Godse was a great man. I am not saying Gandhi was a bad man worth killing. I am not saying, at the least not here, that Gandhi’s policies were wrong. I am representing how Godse thought. I am arguing strictly for two points only:

Godse was a patriot and actually he killed Gandhi because he was a patriot.

The people today who want that anyone who says that Godse was a patriot should be punished are bigots. Because they want all other views eliminated but their own. And that is precisely what a bigot is: A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.

********

30th November 2019

 

 

 

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

And again … Godse

November 29, 2019

Rohit Dhankar

Pragya Thakur again gave an indication in the Lok Sabha that she considers Nathuram Godse a patriot. As a result, a twitter storm started and she lost her new membership of a defence committee. Let’s have a look at what some of the opinion makers in India twitted.

Barkha Dutt demands Pragya Thakur’s removal from BJP because she, according to her, “blotted Gandhi’s memory”: “Removing Pragya Thakur from the parliamentary panel on Defence is hardly enough. Remove her from the party. She blotted the memory of Gandhi. Slandered the reputation of 26/11 hero Hemant Karkare. In the age of muscular Nationalism, if this ain’t anti national, what is.” Twitter on 28th November 2019.

Rana Ayyub laments slide into right-wing majoritarianism: “In the Indian Parliament this afternoon, Pragya Thakur, a terror accused now on the defence panel of the country hailed Gandhi’s assasin Nathuram Godse, a true pariot. Thanks to Modi, Our irreversible slide into right-wing majoritarianism is now complete. What a SHAME.” Twitter, 27 Nov. 2019

Siddharth Varadarajan declares “Godse and Savarkar, Both Must Be Rejected” on authority of Apoorvanand in a video https://youtu.be/LkBKlZMa6eE . Apoorvanand argues that Godse might have been a patriot of a Hindu Rashtra, but not of a democratic India which safeguards equal rights of all irrespective of their caste and creed. He also claims that Nathuram Godse’s Rashtra gave more rights to Hindus and upper caste Hindus, in particular. We will examine these claims.

I have quoted these three persons as representatives of a large group which has made up their minds, are closed to examine their beliefs rationally; and therefore, are not important, however famous they might be.

But there are other people who should be taken more seriously, and whom one expects to be open to challenge and defending their position rationally. This article is addressed these later ones.

Praveen Swami on twitter (27th Nov. 2019) says “Pragya Thakur is entitled to consider Nathuram Godse a patriot—plenty of Indians do. The question is whether the Prime Minister also considers Godse a patriot: every hour that passes without her being expelled from the BJP suggests that he does.” Clearly indicating that even if Pragya Thakur considers Godse a patriot, Prime Minister Modi should not and instead should expel her from BJP.

Ramachadra Guha writes “A Member of Parliament (MP) in the last House, Sakshi Maharaj, praised Godse, and was yet renominated by the BJP. In this election, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidate from Bhopal, Pragya Thakur, praised Godse. Although the prime minister later distanced himself from her remarks, her sentiments were spontaneously endorsed by several other BJP candidates across the country. Notably, all these Godse bhakts won their seats, and by very large margins.” Guha, https://www.hindustantimes.com/columns/godse-worship-goes-mainstream-in-india/story-ixWFJrSz39AQ2yMWrMpheI.html

Note his dubbing those who consider Godse a patriot as his “bhakts” while whose who consider Nehru, Gandhi, Patel, Azad etc. patriots are never labelled as their “Bhakts” or worshippers.

My questions below are to serious political analysis like the last two, and I will start by quoting something copied from Praveen Swami’s Twitter:

“That, if gold rust, what shall poor iron do?

For if the priest be foul, in whom we trust,

What wonder if a layman yield to lust?

And shame it is, if priest take thought for keep,

A shitty shepherd, shepherding clean sheep.”

Geoffrey Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales”

As I don’t care about the first three, I directly ask people like Swami and Guha: Sirs, For if the priest be foul, in whom we trust? You have been championing freedom of speech and thoughtful analysis in politics, if you side with those demanding punishment for people speaking their mind, are you not guilty of curbing freedom of thought? I am not talking of criticising people like Sadhvi and Sakshi Maharaj. That is everyone’s right. I am talking of demand for removing such people from a party because of considering Godse a patriot. (There might be other legitimate reasons for their removal, not under analysis here.)

Before I go on, I would like to make a few things clear. I am no supporter of BJP, or of any party for that matter. I find Pragya Thakur and Sakshi Maharaj positively unfit for politics and wish that people had defeated them, pushed them out of politics. But I do not think they should be punished for speaking their mind in a democracy, in this particular case. Because, I do believe in the principle attributed to Voltaire (perhaps not entirely correctly attributed): “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”

I believe this is a good principle to remember in a democracy, because: “If you deny to anyone else the right to say what you think is wrong, it will not be long before you will lose the right to say what you think is right. Defense of the freedom of others is self-defense.” And to my mind calling Godse a patriot is not even wrong.

I wrote a blog piece on 8th October 2019, titles “Who is a patriot?” and was hesitant to say that Godse was a patriot, precisely for the same reasons as Apoorvanand mentions, that is: he wanted a Hindu Rashtra in which Muslims and Christians were not supposed to have equal rights. That was on the basis of writings of the people like ones I have mentioned above and a drastically shortened version of Godse’s statement in the court. This time I found the full statement that Godse made in the court and read it carefully. I take this statement as expressing Godse’s convictions about the nation, politics and beliefs about Gandhi. And am not concerned about his testimony regarding who was involved in the conspiracy and who was not. Because what matters in this affair is what Godse thought and what his motivations were. On the basis of his statement in court I have no hesitation in saying that Godse was a patriot and actually he assassinated Gandhi precisely because he was patriot. That however, does not mean that he could not have been wrong in coming to his conclusion regarding Gandhi. Nor does it mean that he was not a murderer or his crime was not heinous.

In my article “Who is a patriot?” I used the following definition of a patriot:

“A patriot is a person who has

  1. Special affection for one’s own country
  2. A sense of personal identification with the country
  3. Special concern for the well-being of the country
  4. Willingness to sacrifice to promote the country’s good.”

[For details refer to https://rohitdhankar.com/2019/10/08/who-is-a-patriot/]

And here I will again examine whether Godse was a patriot on these criteria. Paragraph 49 of the above-mentioned statement of Godse begins: “The territory bounded by the North Western Frontier in North and Cape Comorin in the South and the areas between Karachi and Assam that is the whole of pre-partition India has always been to me my mother-land. In this vast area live people of various faiths and I hold that these creeds should have full and equal freedom for following their ideals and beliefs.” (Emphasis added)

There are plenty of paragraphs like this in his statement. Note that this is directly related to criteria one and two in the above definition of a patriot. Those who are interested in more can read Godse’s full statement here. We can safely say that Godse had a personal identification as well as special affection for his country.

In paragraph 50 he writes: “Indian National Congress which was started with the object of winning power for the people in the governance of the country had from the beginning kept before it the ideal of complete nationalism which implies that all Indians should enjoy equal rights and complete equality on the basis of democracy. This ideal of removing the foreign rule and replacing it by the democratic power and authority of the people appealed to me most from the very start of my public career.” Further in para 51: “In my writings and speeches I have always advocated that the religious and communal consideration should be entirely eschewed in the public affairs of the country, at elections, inside and,’ outside the legislatures and in the making and unmaking of Cabinets. I have throughout stood for a secular State with joint electorates and to my mind this is the only sensible thing to do.” (Here I read parts of the resolutions passed at the Bilaspur Session of the Hindu Mahasabha held in December, 1944. Annexture Pages 12 and 13).

The relevant points from The Hindu Mahasabha resolution are:

(i) Basic principles of Constitution of independent Hindusthan: which will be styled as “Constitution of Hindusthan Free State.”

(ii) Historically, politically, ethnologically and culturally Hindusthan is one, whole and indivisible and so she shall remain.

(iii) The Government to be democratic and federal in character.

(iv) The Federal Legislature to be bi-cameral in structure.

(v) Election to be on adult franchise on one man one vote basis. The electorates to be joint with reservation of seats for minorities on population basis.

(vi) Fundamental Rights: All citizens to be equal in and before law. There shall be no law, civil or criminal, substantive or procedural, of a discriminative nature.

(vii) No citizen by reason of his color, caste or creed to be prejudiced in any way in regard to public employment, office or power or honor or exercise of any profession, trade of calling.

(viii) All citizens shall, subject to public order or morality, enjoy freedom of conscience and profession and practice of religion and protection of culture and language and no law shall be made directly or indirectly to endow any religion or prohibit or restrict the free exercise thereof or give any preference or impose disability on account of religious belief of religious status.” (Emphasis added)

This to my mind shows concern for well-being of people of the country without discrimination. One does not know why Godse is accused of ‘India for upper caste Hindus’. Actually, he actively worked for eradication of caste, therefore, the upper caste tag seems to be unjustifiable.

What was Godse’s problem then? Why did he assassinate the most respected leader of the freedom movement, who was considered a Mahatma and father of the nation?

One should read the whole statement to understand Godse’s mind, but first must free oneself from the propaganda unleased by so called liberals.

Godse’s charges on Gandhi are numerous. But basically, he thought that Gandhi somehow got enamoured by Hindu-Muslim unity, and had a deep wish that Muslims recognise him their leader, which they never did. Godse argues that to chase his dream of becoming a leader of all Muslims, exactly as he was a leader of all Hindus, Gandhi started developing a tilt to appease Muslims, giving them concessions, which finally went against Hindus and added to massacre of Hindus by Muslims, as well as partition and creation of Pakistan.

The argument that Gandhi was assassinated only for the last fast is not true. Godse gives an alternative history of freedom movement from 1914, and accuses Gandhi of Muslim appeasement right from Khalafat movement. In his last fast, mentioned above, Gandhi had seven demands all against Hindus, according to Godse. They included release of 55 crore of rupees to Pakistan which was withheld by a government decision and expelling the refugees taking shelter in Mosques in Delhi. Godse describes the wet chilly weather and refugees being thrown out of whatever shelter against the weather they had in Mosques. Some of them walked to Gandhi living in Birla House then, but no one listened to them. He accuses Gandhi that while he demanded that refugees be expelled from Mosques, he never even mentioned that some arrangement to protect them from chilly weather needs to be done. He thinks that in his partiality to Muslims Gandhi was capable of overturning a practical government decision. And Godse thought that this was very dangerous.

After giving a long list of blunders committed due to Muslim appeasement, it seemed that even after partition the national politics will be dominated by Gandhi and Hindus will be at the receiving end of this appeasement. The Razakar movement of Hyderabad where Hindus were being killed was on his mind and he thought that as long as Gandhi was there, the government will not be allowed to interfere to protect Hindus because the Hyderabad ruler was a Muslim. He gives numerous examples of this nature.

The trigger according to Godse was “The accumulating provocation of 32 years culminating in his last pro-Muslim fast at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence of Gandhiji should be brought to an end immediately.”

Godse was aware of the result of his act: “Briefly speaking, I thought to myself and foresaw that I shall be totally ruined and the only thing that I could expect from the people would be nothing but hatred and that I shall have lost my entire honor even more valuable than my life, if I were for kill Gandhiji. But at the same time I felt that the Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely be practical, able to retaliate, and would be powerful with armed forces. No doubt my own future would be totally ruined but the nation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan. People may even call me and dub me as devoid of any sense or foolish, but the nation would be free to follow the course founded on reason which I consider to be necessary for sound nation building. After having fully considered the question, I took the final decision in the matter but I did not speak about it to any one whatsoever. I took courage in my both hands and I did fire the shots at Gandhiji on 30th January, 1948 on the prayer grounds in Birla House.”

He considered himself a patriot: “If devotion to one’s country amounts to a sin, I admit I have committed that sin, If it is meritorious, I humbly claim the merit thereof. I fully and confidently believe that if there be any other court of justice beyond the one founded by the mortals, my act will not be taken as unjust. If after the death there be no such place to reach or to go, there is nothing to be said. I have resorted to the action I did purely for the benefit of the humanity. I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin and destruction to lakhs of Hindus.”

He claims that he wanted a secular state, not preferences to Hindus. That what he was angry about was not that Hindus do not have more rights than Muslims, but that Gandhi always gave more preference to Muslims at the devastating cost to Hindus. “I do say that I had no respect for the present Government owing to their policy which was unfairly favorable towards the Muslims. But at the same time I could clearly see that the policy was entirely due to the presence of Gandhiji in that behalf. But in the absence of such pressure the way is now open for the establishment of a secular State in the true sense of that word.”

One can argue that Godse was mistaken in his interpretation of Gandhi’s politics, that he was wrong in killing Gandhi, that his crime is unpardonable. But I don’t understand how one can deny that he acted out of patriotic sentiment. That his act of killing Gandhi was simultaneously his most heinous crime as well as his supreme sacrifice for the country he loved.

The second question is: if someone thinks on these grounds that Godse was a patriot, how that person becomes a bhakt? Why his or her right to speak his/her mind should be curtained on the pain of punushment? I repeat, criticising and giving augments against such a position is fine. But when liberals want such people to be punished are not they indulging in stifling rational debate on issues of national importance? Are not they declaring that the question of Gandhi’s, Congress’ and Indian State’s appeasement of Muslims cannot be raised, cannot be debated? That no one can advance arguments on that front? That the standard narrative has to be accepted without a murmur?

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own. By demanding punishment for expression of opinions differing from them, are not the liberals proving themselves to be bigots?

Guha claims that in the Mahatma’s lifetime, the Hindutva people “opposed his asking for equal rights for Muslims.” The Hindutva and writings of Savarkar have become convenient handles stifle inconvenient questions in Indian politics. Whatever Savarkar may have written, in what sense are the points in Hindu Mahasabha resolution quoted above discriminatory against Muslims? Would any one argue that Gandhi’s philosophy was the Congress policy? If not why Savarkar’s thesis should be considered more important that the publicly passed resolution of Hindu Mahasabha?

So, Sirs, if the priest be foul, in whom we trust?

  1. On what grounds you deny that Godse was a patriot?
  2. On grounds you recommend that any one saying that he was a patriot be punished?

********

29th November 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

We will be a better society if Firoz Khan teaches Gita and Ghanshyam Sharma teaches Quran

November 20, 2019

Rohit Dhankar

Banaras Hindu University’s Sanskrit Vidya Dharm Vigyan (SVDV) faculty students are on protest. Simply because Dr. Firoz Khan, a Muslim, is appointed as an assistant professor in SCDV Faculty to teach Sanskrit literature; for which he is amply qualified as per the UGC norms.

Students’ objection seems to be how can a Muslim teach in a faculty which has Hindu-Dharma at its centre? How can a Muslim teach Hindu theology? How can a Muslim teach us Hindu dharma? How can a Muslim teach is Sanatana? These seem to be the questions being asked repeatedly. Most of the media, including social media this time, seems to think that the students are being bigoted, the term is actually used. And it is appropriate enough. But simply leaving the issue at that hides a much bigger problem in hour universities unearthed. The students are not only behaving in a bigoted manner, they are acting this way under a wrong assumption about university education.

Our universities are actually acting as if purpose of a university is to teach students to believe that their teachers believe. In other words, the purpose of university education is assumed to be producing ideological clones of their teachers. Even a cursory survey of any humanities and social science department will amply prove that most of the students regurgitate ideological positions of their teachers more or less exactly in the same terminology. The malaise is deeper when you move to the extremes of the political-ideology spectrum. Extreme right professors produce indoctrinated bigots who spew extreme right views, and extreme left professors actually leave no room in students minds for anything else but their meaningless jargon.

From this point of view, BHU students’ logic is flowless: how can a believing Muslim, who is by definition non-believer in Hinduism, teach them to believe in dogmas of Hinduism?

What these students don’t know, because they were never taught, is that purpose of university education is not to develop faith in the doctrines of your teachers; it is rather to learn critical examination of all doctrines, gain confidence in your own intellect, develop courage to chose your own belief system on the basis of your own reason.

The BHU students don’t seem to realise that when a professor teaches theory of evolution or philosophy of Plato or Nyaya-Darshan in a university, she is not trying to convert students into believing in what she is teaching. She is interest in making them understand these topics/branches of knowledge, their development, their context, the arguments and evidence in favour and against them. In a university classroom the issue is not ‘instilling the beliefs’; that would be indoctrination. The issue is ‘critical understanding’. And leaving the student alone to decide what to believe or not to believe.

A good teacher needs to understand the subject matter she is teaching and should also be capable of resisting strong urge to indoctrinate young minds. I have a suspicion our university teaching is failing in both. Neither the teachers have mastery over the subject matter they are teaching nor the open-mindedness to teach this without indoctrination.

To illustrate the point: Once some faculty members of a famous university were lamenting that the new master’s programme they started was not really successful. A discussion ensued as to why do they think so? After a long discussion the problem as formulated by one of the lamenting group was: “when the students come, they have certain views on society, polity, etc. and they remain more or less unchanged when they leave after two years”. Others gave a counter argument that “maybe we notice little change in day-to-day expression of beliefs, but the students defend their views with much more rigour and appropriate arguments. Also, on many crucial issues they are more open to think and reconsider when they face challenging argument after two years, in comparison to when they enter the university.” The lamenting group was not satisfied. And they were not wrong. They have been teaching 21-25 years olds who started speaking their teachers’ language by the time two years were over. Therefore, students not only felt gratified, they saw the direct results of their teaching. In this new programme average age of students was above 30 years and most had work experience of ranging from 5 to 10 years. These more mature students were not as pliable as the younger ones, the faculty saw it as a sign of failure. While it was exactly the opposite. The faculty in this university saw the job of the teacher not to make students understand but to instil chosen beliefs in their minds. That the students start thinking like them.

From the point of view of critically understanding doctrines and principles; be they theological or scientific; we will be better off as a society if a Firoz Khan teaches Gita and a Ghanshyam Sharma teaches Quran. If both these fictitious teachers be knowledgeable, intelligent, honest and caring for students they will be able to keep their own faith to themselves and deal with the subject matter with the kind of rigour it demands. In addition, the two faiths living side-by-side for thousand years may get a chance of being understood by believers of each other. (Personally, in my view a declared atheist would be the best theology teacher for any religion.)

I suspect most of our universities see ‘teaching’ as instilling beliefs rather than forming belief on critical rational grounds. And that precisely what makes universities factories of indoctrinated copies of their teachers. JNU is no different from SVDVF of BHU in this, even if the colour of indoctrination is opposite to each other.

******

20 November 2019

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

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »